the next chapter in an increasingly bizarre story

Wow.

* * * *

Some notes.

1. In previous posts and comments on this topic, "CI" refers to the blog and blog community Common Ills, not to the person who posts under the name C.I.. I have had no dealings with C.I. the person except her recent demands that I take down the earlier posts. However, emails from Jess, Dona and Jim all used a Common Ills address, so I referred to them as Jess/CI, Dona/CI, and so forth, or referred to the whole community as CI.

2. Apparently, in her email to me, Dona alluded to - or thinks she did - information that is private within the CI community. Now the community is frantically demanding that I remove the posts. They are also demanding that the Campaign order me to remove the posts.

As I am not part of the CI community, Dona should not have disclosed private information about any of their members. The breach was hers, not mine.

Had I not posted the email, I could have forwarded it everyone I knew, who could have then forwarded it everyone they knew. If you want to keep something private, keep it private.

3. Nowhere in Dona's email, or in any emails from CI members to me, is the word "cancer" used.

4. To state the obvious, I did not post Dona's email in order to reveal private information about anyone in the CI community. The email was so rambling and convoluted that I didn't even realize there was personal information embedded in the verbiage.

5. This is the first item on the sidebar of The Common Ills blog.

Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting. This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.

6. It does seem that The Troll has entered the fray, after reading about the incident on wmtc. He has sent emails impersonating me, also claiming to be my female partner, to members of the CI community. This is an interesting development, and surely one with legal implications.

Needless to say, the CI community does not believe there is troll involvement. I am supposedly sending profanity-laced emails to these people. Allan asked if they would forward the emails to me, but they will not.

* * * *

Follow up wow.

The whole thing is very sad.

common ills replies, i remain baffled (updated) (and upperdated)

This morning I received this email from Common Ills.

There are 2531 e-mails in the inbox. We do not have time for pen pals.

Jess responded to your e-mail yesterday.

You didn't grasp that when Jess mentioned Mike and Rebecca he did so for a reason.

This community that C.I. created has many online sites including:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
and Marcia SICKOFITRDLZ.

The mistake you made is in assuming that we do not all share. As Jess was pointing out to you, he knows (as do I, as does everyone) about your e-mails to Mike and Rebecca.

He had no reason to be nice to you.

As you did with Rebecca and Mike (who never linked to you -- C.I. linked to you in the snapshots, they reposted C.I.'s snapshots), you e-mailed your gripe. You tossed "Thank you" at the front and acted friendly and then did what you did in -- what? 15? -- letters to The New York Times which was to offer how C.I. was wrong. C.I. wasn't wrong. And, as Gina points out, this is a private conversation in a public sphere. As we say at our site, "The Third Estate Sunday Review focuses on politics and culture. We're an online magazine. We don't play nice and we don't kiss butt. In the words of Cher: 'If you can dig it then I'm happy and if you can't then I'm sorry.' We're not really sorry, we just wanted a 'dig it' quote. Don't like it? There are millions of sites online -- move along, you're blocking the view."

One thing that has always ticked off Jim and I, before we even knew C.I. and before we started Third was all the people e-mailing C.I. asking for links, asking that their books be promoted, their broadcasts, their speaking tours and on and on. No one ever gives back shit to The Common Ills. We've seen that over and over.

As you did with Jess, your e-mail presents yourself as a voice for War Resisters Support Campaign. C.I.'s noted them non-stop for years and years. The "thank you for covering Robin Long but . . ." comes off -- intended or not -- as a bit condescending. C.I. was covering Robin Long from the moment he went public. If there's a war resister in Canada who has gone public and not been covered by C.I. it's an oversight.

Heather attempted to explain the problem with coverage to you but you dismissed her. Which means, journalistically (that would be what my undergraduate degree is in and what my grad degree will be in) you're not very aware. C.I. and Ava have screamed and screamed at friends (and family) in the Real Press to get coverage of them in the US. There's a cable channel where they called in every favor they had to get a report. They will offer trades, they will offer anything offline (including a band playing at a kid's birthday in one instance), they will beg, they will scream until they are hoarse. And that's just to get a producer or editor to assign a reporter to look into it. They bust their asses every damn day. And if they're not pressuring the press, they're pressuring Congress.

So when Heather's explaining to you that ____ or ___ or all of Panhandle Media is ignoring the issue of war resisters, dismissing it grandly is not a sign of awareness.

A friend of C.I.'s was interviewed for one hour by Panhandle Media this week and he stated he wanted to talk about Iraq. The interviewer never got around to it -- in an entire hour. Allegedly on 'politics.' Panhandle Media has walked away from Iraq.

When The Myth of the Great Return started in November, C.I. called it from the start. Called friends in the State Dept, at the UN, at the Red Cross to make sure it was a myth and hit on it hard over and over -- even before the UN finally weighed in officially one week later saying it wasn't safe to return to Iraq. C.I. and Ava screamed and yelled and begged and pleaded with friends not to repeat the myth, they were very vocal that the blood of any refugee who came back to Iraq and died would be on the outlet's hands. After a month, finally the myth was exposed. (And C.I. repeatedly gives the outlet that finally stepped up credit for doing so.) During all of that, where was Panhandle Media? Ignoring Iraq. After The Myth of the Great Return started it had its intended result -- to drive up support for the illegal war in domestic polling. That's the only reason the myth was started. And there were the usual rejects of Panhandle Media like Amy Goodman puzzling over the polling numbers. The polls went up because LIES weren't being called out.

Panhandle Media thinks saying "Judy Miller, Judy Miller" over and over is 'covering' Iraq. Judith Miller was pulled from Iraq in 2003. The illegal war didn't end then. Not only that, it was Dexter Filkins who lied about the November 2004 Falluja slaughter and won an award for it. When a major daily finally exposed Dexy as the go-to-guy for the US military, Panhandle Media still ignored that. Despite the fact that Molly Bingham had already revealed how Dexy would kill a story if the US military didn't like it. As early as 2004, C.I. was saying at The Common Ills if people like Judith Miller got the US over there, it's people like Dexter that keep the US over there by lying in their 'reporting.'

I have no idea what you do each day. I know what C.I. does. I know C.I. has put her entire life on hold (and Ava has now as well) to do everything possible to end the illegal war. C.I. has spoken a minimum of two weeks a month since Feb. 2003 against the illegal war to students, women's groups and labor groups. For the last two years, it's been every week of the year. That's despite a health scare. So when your e-mail comes in critizing C.I. when C.I.'s correct, of course Jess is going to be offended. I'm offended by you. As Kat likes to point out, C.I. could be sitting by her pool every day. Instead, she's out on the road and she's been everywhere except Alaska in the US (including Puerto Rico, etc.) speaking out against the illegal war. Currently, C.I., Ava, Wally and Kat arrive home Saturday afternoon. They're up all Saturday night/Sunday morning working on Third. They turn around and hit the road again on Monday morning. There was one week since January when they were here (Bay Area). Even then, they were speaking every day but in their own area. There is no 'break' or 'vacation' for them. (And C.I. was undergoing medical tests that week as well.) .So we really don't need your letters to the editor here.

Jess made it clear that this isn't a pen pal service. If someone writes here they need to be writing for a reason. I'm having to stop and make time to reply to you because I'm on the public account today.

Jess wasn't rude to you. He was indifferent.

He, very business like, went over the realities that you did not know. He, very business like, told you that if you had news of an event or something you wanted to highlight to e-mail.

The public account and the private accounts are worked by Jim, Jess, Eli, Martha, Shirley, Ava and C.I. and sometimes Heather. (I believe you know Heather. She called out your Barack Delusions.) So many because there are so many e-mails. There is no time for pen pals.

Rosa and Reese are in Canada. Rosa is told she does not get immigrant status and has to leave. Rosa doesn't want to. Canadian officials escort her to the airport and she departs for another country. That is deporation. Reese is told that he's not accepted and that he's being 'deported' but is turned over to American authorities. That is extradition.

It's really basic. The fact that, when you read C.I., you didn't grasp that goes to problems on your end. Want to get attention up a notch? Start presenting the extradition of Robin. He wasn't deported. Deported is kicked out of the country. Turned over to the authorities of another country is extradition. Mactavish (who has consistently ruled against war resisters) did an extradition and did it without going through the proper channels. That's news. It was outrageous when Canadian officials took orders from the US and arrested Kyle Snyder. It was outrageous when two US military service members joined a Canadian police officer and all three presented as police officers as they went hunting for Joshua Key. It has now been taken up a notch.

Hopefully Jeremy will not be deported. If he is, he should have a real deportation. Which means choosing where he wants to go and if it's the US he will not be turned over (by Canadian officals) to the US authorities. That would be extradition.

To do an extradition proper would have meant review by a higher authority of Mactavish's actions. It would have delayed Robin's departure and it would have most likely outraged even more Canadians than the deporation did. "We're just kicking him out" was the right-wing defense. No, you were kicking him and handing him over to authorities. You were practicing extradition for a 'crime' not covered in your treaty with the US.

It was a big no-no.

No treaty would have allowed an extradition. Had Robin been stationed by the US military in Canada and then deserted, he would have been covered by existing treaties between the US and Canada. NO SUCH TREATY EXISTS CURRENTLY. Mactavish has created a new 'law.' It is outrageous.

We are all very busy. Myself, I'm in grad school. I work on Third. I read e-mails there and here. I also schedule Ava and C.I. (which Wally, Kat and Rebecca are now going along on) weekly speaking engagements. My plate is full. In the public account, I'm rushing through as many e-mails as I can to find if someone's highlight is worth passing on to C.I. or if it goes in the trash. Is a journalist writing to say they were treated unfairly by C.I.? If so I put it in "MUST READ" a folder C.I. reads. There are several community newsletters and they help cut down on TCI members e-mailing because they provide a forum for other things. But the public account (which you've now written twice) is for official stuff.

Jess explained the issue to you. As a law student, as the child of two attorneys and the grandson of another, he knows what he's talking about. C.I. knows what she's talking about. An extradition took place. Things need to be called what they are.

Dona

My reply:

Didn't think you were a pen pal, didn't think you didn't share, didn't remember any interaction with Rebecca. Don't think the mail from Jess was businesslike. I'd hate to be a part of any business that communicated in that businesslike fashion!

Thanks for the reply. Good luck in all your efforts.

Laura

And some notes, which I'll share here.

As Jess was pointing out to you, he knows (as do I, as does everyone) about your e-mails to Mike and Rebecca.

I wish I knew about my emails to Mike and Rebecca! I couldn't remember anything about Rebecca, but I had the vaguest recollection of an exchange with Mike, and I could have sworn it was positive.

I searched through my Gmail archives, I found this.

Me to Mike, 12/1/07:

Hi, I've seen my blog linked a few times at your sites. I just wanted to say thank you for your ongoing support of US war resisters in Canada. All best to you.

--
Laura K
a/k/ L-girl
www.wmtc.ca

Mike to me, 12/3/07

Laura,

We Move to Canada. I know your site and enjoy it. Keep doing great work.

The links you're seeing are in C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot." I repost the snapshot like every other community member does if they post that day. So C.I.'s the one writing "Iraq snapshot" and that goes up at The Common Ills, the rest of us just grab it when we post in the evening.

War resisters need a lot of support because they're doing something really courageous. I'm thinking you were from NY before you and your husband moved to Canada. I'm in MA and there's so little coverage of war resisters in this area. I think it's really cool that you and your husband went to Canada. I should have gone before the passport requirement went through! :D

Best,
Mike

Me to Mike, 12/07/07

Hi Michael, thanks for your email.

The war resisters are the most courageous people I have ever met. Most of us stand for peace but risk very little to do so. They have risked everything. I feel a real obligation to help them in any little way I can.

Yes, we lived in NYC for 20+ years before moving to Canada. I'm from there originally, my partner is from Vermont. We're both huge Red Sox fans so we might have something in common, at least with your neighbours if not you.

Thanks again for your support. If you haven't already, please write a "Dear Canada" letter through Courage To Resist.

All best,

Laura K

I didn't find anything to or from Rebecca. As far as I know, this is the full extent of my previous interactions with anyone from the group of Common Ills blogs.

One thing that has always ticked off Jim and I, before we even knew C.I. and before we started Third was all the people e-mailing C.I. asking for links, asking that their books be promoted, their broadcasts, their speaking tours and on and on. No one ever gives back shit to The Common Ills. We've seen that over and over.

What does this have to do with me? I never asked for anything. I've never written to any blog to ask for a link or a promotion, ever.

You tossed "Thank you" at the front and acted friendly and then did what you did in -- what? 15? -- letters to The New York Times which was to offer how C.I. was wrong.

I don't know what this means. The last time I wrote a letter to the New York Times, was in 2005, when still living in the US. I've never written to the Times on this issue, only to Canadian newspapers, and only brief letters in support of war resisters.

The "thank you for covering Robin Long but . . ." comes off -- intended or not -- as a bit condescending.

I get emails all the time from people in the peace movement or in military resistance thanking me for my coverage. I've gotten emails from people in the reproductive rights movement thanking me.

I thank anyone who covers the issues that are important to me. I thank people for going to rallies, for tabling, for writing letters to their MPs. I thank people for their activism. I thank people for their efforts, and they do the same for me.

It's a way of cheering each other on, of acknowledging that we are all doing what we can. It's a way of acknowledging each other, period.

Also, please note, I did not write "thank you for covering Robin long but".

Heather attempted to explain the problem with coverage to you but you dismissed her.

I don't know what this means. I don't remember anyone named Heather attempting to explain anything to me. That doesn't mean it didn't happen - my memory for one-time communications is very poor - but I have no recollection of it. Was it in a comment that I didn't reply to? An email? I don't know.

Jess wasn't rude to you. He was indifferent.

He, very business like, went over the realities that you did not know. He, very business like, told you that if you had news of an event or something you wanted to highlight to e-mail.

Read Jess's email here.

Would you use the subject line "And you got your law degree when?" in a businesslike email?

Would you use ALL CAPS if you were indifferent?

And so on.

Want to get attention up a notch? Start presenting the extradition of Robin.

I don't write things about the resisters to get attention. I'm trying to get them attention.

[Update. A commenter pointed out that Dona/CI probably means getting the resisters attention, not wmtc. I see that now.]

As a resister explained yesterday in a comment, his lawyer - and all their lawyers, as far as I am aware - don't use the word extradited. The Campaign doesn't say Robin was extradited. The Campaign uses the word deported. Wmtc is linked on the Campaign's website; I'm trying to be an outlet for Campaign news. So I'm going to go with the language the Campaign uses.

Other people believe differently, and want to do otherwise? That's no problem.

It's no problem to me, certainly.

This whole thing makes me sad. Sharing it with you all makes me feel much better.

Yesterday's discussion over the etiquette of posting this settled it for me. People were nasty and, as Kim put it, high conflict. In my view their meanness towards me was totally unwarranted. I don't owe them privacy. (I'm also not assuming they want privacy. For all I know, this attention may be gratifying to them.) I don't owe courtesy where none was shown to me. I should do what feels right to me, and this is it.

Thanks for your support and feedback, much appreciated.

Update.

After reading James's suggestion (see comments), I double-checked to see if I ever emailed with Rebecca. I didn't find her name, but I did find one email from me to the email address from the blog Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, from November, 2007. The email address doesn't have her name in it, so I didn't recognize or remember it as connected to a person named Rebecca. Here's what I wrote.

I saw your post with the lyrics to one of my favourite songs, A Case Of You.

Don't despair. The Canadian Supreme Court did the wrong thing, but Canadians will do the right thing. We will insist our country gives asylum to US war resisters. And amazingly enough, democracy still works here. We can make it happen.

If you haven't already, join the campaign through Courage to Resist ("Dear Canada") or the War Resisters Support Campaign, www.resisters.ca.

Thanks for your support.

--
Laura K
a/k/ L-girl
www.wmtc.ca

There was no reply.

Now I've posted the full extent of my previous interactions with the Common Ills community.

Upperdate. I just received this email from Jim at Common Ills.

Jim here. You're rude. You were rude to Rebecca. You were rude to Mike. Jess replied to your rude e-mail. Dona's replied to your rude e-mail. Don't write again unless you have an announcement.

We laugh our asses off at the American so scared by who occupied the White House that she ran to Canada.

You're a lousy face for the War Resisters Support Campaign and probably shouldn't try to speak for them in your e-mails.

Don't reply.

Wow.

progressive people are not always nice

I'm accustomed to getting nasty emails from warmongers and wingnuts, but not from progressive people, and not over... well, over what exactly, I'm not sure.

I debated whether or not to make this public. Opinion is divided on proper etiquette: when someone sends a gratuitously nasty email, is it your right to make it public? Your opinions are welcome.

But here's what happened. I saw this post at The Common Ills. Common Ills frequently blogs about war resisters, and of course I appreciate that, so I like to check in now and again. Like most of my blog reading, my trips there are sporadic, so if there's a running theme, I could easily miss it.

So in this post, Common Ills says, about Robin Long, "he was extradited (not deported)". Common Ills has since changed the sentence; it now links to two earlier references to extradition. These were not here when I first read it.

I was surprised by the phrase "he was extradited (not deported)", since the resisters' lawyers refer to Robin as having been deported, and the Campaign does the same. I was under the impression - again, from movement lawyers - that he was not extradited.

Common Ills doesn't have comments open, so I sent the following email.

Subject line: thanks for your post on robin long

Hi,

Thanks for your continuing attention to the war resisters in Canada.

To clarify, Robin Long was actually deported. He was snagged on a trumped-up immigration charge, arrested, then deported. It wasn't an extradition. The Canadian government is avoiding extradition, as it will make their complicity with the US too apparent. Instead, they are denying them refugee status and then saying, your time here is up, you must leave. That is deportation or removal. It gives them a more palatable (they think) fallback position. We intend to continue to expose them, of course.

Thanks again for your post about Robin and your links to the War Resister Support Campaign site.

Laura K

I sent it from my personal email address, with my full name.

This morning I received this.

Subject line: You got your law degree when?

Jess here.

There's no need for you to e-mail to clarify anything and, in fact, you haven't.

I'm not in the mood to be word nicely because I know of your interactions with Rebecca and Mike.

C.I. has gone over this and over this and what law degree do you hold?

Robin Long was extradited.

Journalist free lancer that you are, you are not a lawyer.

Not only will I match C.I.'s legal knowledge up against yours, I will throw my mother -- a lifetime member of the National Lawyers Guild -- and her knowledge up against you as well as my law professors knowledge up against you.

C.I. actually used "extradited" during the week Robin was extradited. But then pulled back until speaking Saturday morning with attorneys and judges in Canada. At which point, July 19th, extradited wasn't just the term, it was the right term. Presumably you are familiar with Michael Byers? What term does the chair in Global Politics and International Law (University of British Columbia) use -- "deported" or "extradited"? He uses extradited. Does so publicly and began doing so July 20th.

I have no idea why you would try to "clarify" a damn thing with C.I. Robin was arrested?

Thanks for that 'news flash.' Reality: C.I. covered that in real damn time and so did we at Third. We damn well know the story. And don't need you rushing over to say, "Oh, let me tell you!" something we damn well already know.

You don't know what you're talking about legally (YOU'RE NOT EVEN AWARE THAT MCTAVISH USED THE TERM "EXTRADITION" THE MONDAY OF THE DECISION IN OPEN COURT!!!!!) So don't write unless you have some news to pass on. News to pass on is "-- an event is being held" and something similar.

I was stunned. No exaggeration: stunned. I re-read my original email, to see if I had perhaps unwittingly used harsh language. (I don't know why I would have, I had no harsh feelings.) Perhaps I came across as didactic or presumptuous. I know I can. But still, is this nastiness warranted? And what interaction with Rebecca and Mike? I can't recall any.

In my confusion, I emailed my response in different parts. I know that's lame, but, well, I couldn't think of how to respond all at once.

My first reply.

Geez. Get a grip. This is what our lawyers have told us. Obviously you know otherwise. That's fine. No need to attack.

Best to you.

Laura

Second reply.

Jess, if you don't mind, what interactions have I had with Rebecca and Mike that would lead you to be so nasty to me?

I thought my interactions with CI were all positive. But I may have forgotten something, as I have memory problems from a health condition. If you didn't mind filling me in, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

L.

And finally, later in the day, this.

Jess,

I'm re-reading your email, and I am positively baffled. It's as if we were having an argument that I didn't know we were having.

I truly meant only to clarify. I didn't "rush over" - I was just reading. And I didn't know you've "been over this and over this". It was the first time I had seen anything mentioning extradition.

The lawyers who help us at the War Resister Support Campaign always use the term deportation. They never use extradition. Thus my email.

If I'm wrong - which I understand I am, you've made that very clear - why not just tell me? Why lace your email with venom? Why be so mean, when we're both on the same side?

I just can't understand it. I'm accustomed to getting nasty emails from warmongers and other right-wingers, but not from fellow progressive bloggers. I hope you'll return to explain.

Laura

This kind of thing is really hard for me to understand. It seems so outside the usual blogosphere ethos.

While I was deciding whether or not to make this public, I showed Allan the blog, and he immediately noticed this on the sidebar.

Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting. This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.

this is one weird troll

Check out these clips from discussion threads at the Toronto Star.

Why is Canada unique?

Regardless of Khadr's guilt or innocence (remember when people were innocent until proven guilty?), no one thinks he is being treated fairly at Guantanamo, or that he will receive a fair trial at the hands of the Americans. Every other country has managed to get its prisoners freed from Guantanamo. Why is Canada content to let this situation continue? Simply because Harper wants to impress Bush.

Posted by magnolia_2000 at 8:05 AM Saturday, July 26 2008

* * * *

McCain's gaffes are not so easily explained

In the one gaffe cited for Obama, he refers to Israel twice, which cannot be a factual error and seems likely due to fatigue. McCain's examples, on the other hand, are suspicious, and I am worried that they do indicate actual ignorance. (My opinion is influenced by the fact that I have seen other examples in which he frequently contradicts his own claims, and doesn't seem to be clear on what he believes.) Even if you want to give McCain the benefit of the doubt, how do you explain his references to Czechoslovakia?

I'm sure he's busy, but I'm not buying that excuse.

Posted by magnolia_2000 at 9:49 AM Thursday, July 24 2008

* * * *

CSIS continues the spying...

Anyone who thinks that the RCMP's behaviour is a "sign of the times" should take a closer look at CSIS. CSIS continues this behaviour today. Our tax dollars are wasted as they follow around anti-war (and other) activists - as if pacifists are a potential terrorist threat.

Posted by magnolia_2000 at 7:18 PM Tuesday, August 05 2008

Mags is still trying to post here, under several different names - all virulently racist and sexist spew. Yet at The Star, he's progressive. Weirdest. Troll. Ever.

hey, look what I found!

Troll update! Scrolling through some stories in the Toronto Star, look who I found commenting.

This guy is a better chameleon than I thought. Here, he appears to be an articulate liberal.

troll alert

After laying low for a few days, the racist, sexist, homophobic, clueless troll is back. He is visiting blogs that link to wmtc, and leaving nasty comments as either "I-girl", "Magnolia_2000" or "redsock." (note the dot). I guess the idea is that people who have been reading this blog for years will believe that I have suddenly revealed my evil nature, thus shunning me and driving traffic away from wmtc.

This is how a man spends his time.

As much as we'd like to believe otherwise, this troll is not a kid. He seems to be an adult male - and Canadian.

I wish I could interview one of these losers, in-depth, over the course of several days. I'd love to know more about the mentality behind this. Can you imagine spending your time this way? Can you imagine having this much time?

A strange hobby indeed.

Update. I forgot the name "Sanity & Reason". He reserves a lot of his virulent anti-abortion and anti-immigrant hatred for that name. Thanks to the reader who reminded me.

oy.

If your blog receives a comment to the effect of "Please stop linking to my page wmtc.ca. I don't think we share the same values anymore.", please look carefully at the name.

I-girl is not L-girl, although the two look alike in Blogger's lower case view.

Check the profile. Not me.

Yes, a troll is visiting the blogs of wmtc readers, first insulting me, and now attempting to impersonate me.

I didn't want to give him this attention, but several blog-friends have been confused, so here we are.

You may also see posts by "Magnolia_2000", one of his many personas. Mags sends comments to both wmtc and Joy of Sox on a regular basis, despite the fact that his posts never show up. We see his name and click "reject" without reading the comments.

This is one troubled boy!

i heart comment moderation

For most of this blog's life, I was very resistant to using comment moderation. But now that I've turned it on, I love it!

In the early days of this blog, before we moved and through our first year in Canada, there was a lot of discussion and healthy debate amongst commenters, whether or not I was around. The comments section became something of a forum, and I felt using moderation would have ruined the vibe. I felt it was better to weed out trolls by deleting, rather than preventing, their comments.

And in those days, trolls were often unintentionally enlightening. They were usually US wingnuts who embodied so much of what I was eager to leave behind. They proudly displayed the ignorance, exceptionalism, small-mindedness and intolerance better than I ever could have explained it.

Their ignorance of Canada was especially funny. Did you know that if a Canadian says something bad about the Queen, there'll be a knock on their door in the middle of the night, and they'll be taken away? Did you know it's illegal to speak English in Montreal? That you must wait weeks or months for even the most basic health care, and then when you get it, it's botched and you die?

Even the occasional Canadian troll (you may recall the notorious GaryStJ) had an educational value. Although when he started following me to other blogs, it got a bit creepy.

So in those days, I either left the troll comments as-is, or deleted them, but quoted them in my own posts.

In addition, I was still working out my own comment policy - what I wanted to tolerate in my own space, what balance to draw between free expression and senseless arguing, what felt right to me.

But now I've worked out my comment policy and I'm very comfortable with it. Bogus claims about censorship don't bother me. Blogs that allow unrestricted comments, where the comments devolve into a name-calling screaming match, show me exactly what I don't want.

Wmtc rarely has the kind of lengthy, in-depth discussions it used to. Allan and I are at home in Canada now, so I'm no longer asking the kinds of questions that sparked those chats. It also could be partly because certain former readers who tended towards those discussions have moved on.

The recent rash of troll activity yielded nothing educational or entertaining. It was simply a waste of energy. I was going to be away from my computer for a while, so I tried comment moderation as an experiment.

To my surprise, I loved it. I love the complete control it gives the blogger. It's total stress reduction: I don't have to download my email and wait for unpleasant surprises. I see the troll's or banned commenter's name, and delete the comment unread.

In the past, if I wrote about a topic where I didn't want any debate on this blog - such as abortion or capital punishment - I would post a warning or turn off comments. Now I can keep comments open for readers' thoughts without fear of pollution.

Allan and I gave each other moderation rights to each other's blogs, so we have more opportunity to publish the comments. So usually comments don't sit waiting for moderation for too long, anyway.

Several trolls and banned commenters continue to leave comments, knowing their words will never appear on the blog. I'm not sure what they get out of this, but then, I don't understand the troll mentality anyway. It's the easiest thing to make their attempts disappear. Two clicks, and they're done, and I don't even have to read the comment.

Thanks Blogger!

wmtc3

It's today! People will be arriving in an hour or so. And it's not raining. Yay!

welcome to the blogosphere, kim in t.o.

Friend of wmtc Kim_In_TO has graduated from commenter-only to blogger!

My Canada Includes Justice is where Kim K will be "fighting war, racism, sexism, homophobia, and injustice - anywhere and everywhere". Nicely done!

why i blog

With deepest apologies to George Orwell, one of my great writing heroes.

Why I Blog

I find it an extremely valuable writing discipline. Blogging helps me write every day. Writing every day primes the pump for my life as a writer.

It is very useful to write for an audience. Instead of writing in a notebook and ending up with a bunch of half-formed ideas, knowing that someone is reading helps me write more clearly, which means it helps me think more clearly.

On the other hand, it is very difficult and time-consuming to get columns or essays published. My work was published before I started blogging, and continues to be. But writing without the need to attract an editor frees me from having to construct a complete, publishable essay tailored to a specific audience.

Thus, somewhere between the personal notebook of vague ideas and the slaved-over, multi-drafted essay for possible publication, lives my blog post.

For self-expression. I have a need to write. I have had this need all my life.

To share information I find interesting, noteworthy or valuable.

For community. We've met most of our friends in Canada through this blog. Other people have met each other (independent of me) through wmtc.

To help people interested in emigrating to Canada. People email me for information all the time. I can't always answer their questions, but I can try to point them in the right direction, and I can at least offer support. Many Canadians were incredibly helpful and supportive to me and Allan in our journey. I try to do the same for others.

To learn. I ask questions, I put forth ideas, people of similar viewpoints offer more information and direct me to other sources.

To have a record of my experience, first as an emigrant, then as an immigrant, and one day as a Canadian citizen.

Not Why I Blog

To gather a spectrum of viewpoints on a particular topic. Because I don't tolerate all viewpoints and opinions on wmtc, I am frequently criticized for being close-minded. The truth is I see a lot of different viewpoints. I just don't want them on my own blog. It would ruin the experience for me. A new friend of wmtc recently described my blog as a "safe space"; for me that affirmed I was doing the right thing.

To debate. I dislike debate for its own sake. I find it tiresome and tiring, a misuse of my limited time and energy. My preferred method of learning is to read and consider. I will read and consider anyone's opinion, but I won't be baited into an argument. When I forget that, I am always sorry.

There are hundreds of thousands of blogs and message boards on which people can debate any topic under the sun. Readers seeking that type of experience would do well to avoid wmtc.

To bait others into an argument. See above.

So that other people can use my blog as a soapbox. And lest any friend of wmtc be paranoid, I welcome long comments from wmtc readers and discussions among readers. I'm referring to people who don't read my blog but think it might be a good place to direct other people to their own blogs, or to spout their opinions on any unrelated topic.

For money. I love being paid for my writing, and if blogging helps me land a paying assignment, that's beautiful. But the blog itself has to stay noncommercial in order for it to remain completely independent, and to retain its value to me.

Because I have nothing better to do.

* * * *

I don't want to turn this into a meme, but if anyone reading this would like to write about why they blog, I'd be happy to read (and post) the link.

housecleaning

I just updated my blogroll, checking to see who is still blogging, and if they are, still linking to wmtc.

My blog reading is so erratic that I prefer to list who links to me, as opposed to who I read.

If you link to this blog and I don't link to you - assuming you'd like a link - please let me know.

Update: Also, if you haven't received an invite to wmtc3 - and you can be in the Toronto area on June 7 - and you'd like to meet a bunch of bloggers and other good people - email me!

new plates!

Check it out!

This is no licence plate generator. This is our car.

We wanted "wmtc" by itself, but it was already taken. But for second choice, we're very happy with it.

wingnut fixation

There's a certain blog.

A reactionary wingnut blog, written by a Canadian woman.

Like her wingnut comrades, she's not big on facts. A lot of heat, not much light. Lots of vitriol and bile. Lots of mindless saluting and flag-waving. So what's new. Perhaps she fancies herself the Canadian Ann Coulter. That should be all the description you need.

This blog supposedly gets a lot of traffic. But if what I see at Progressive Bloggers is any indication, many of those clicks are from progressives, who read her blog, then denounce her on their own blogs. They pound their fists on their keyboards. All the while, of course, publicizing her blog.

I don't get it.

All activists want to keep apprised of what their opponents are doing, but in my opinion, right-wing blogs don't figure into that equation. This woman is not an MP. She's not an influential writer or thinker. She's in no position to make public policy, or to sway public opinion. People who agree with her are already a lost cause.

And if she does influence someone? What can be done about that? We can't run around the internet trying to correct every mistake and counter every argument.

Why hand her so much publicity? Why the constant highlighting of her posts? Why is any progressive person at her blog in the first place to even know what she is posting? (And before you tell me how I must have read her blog in order to write this post, I went once, months ago, to see what all the fuss is about. I scrolled through a few dozen posts, and never returned.)

If I were this blogger, I'd be laughing all the way to the Statcounter Bank. "I make provocative statements, and look how the moonbats dance!"

Why let this woman push your buttons?

statcounter curiosity

Could someone who is visiting wmtc from here please tell me why? What are you? Who linked to me there? I am curious! I must know!

six things you may not know (or care) about wmtc

Idealistic Pragmatist has tagged me with a meme, and although as a rule I don't do these things, I like what she did with hers, so I will imitate it.

The original thingamajiggy is "six unimportant/trivial things about me". IP said:

I kind of already did this one once with personal stuff, though, and I'm reluctant to fill the world with still more irrelevant personal trivia about me. So rather than be a killjoy and just ignore their tags, I'm going to compromise by making this about IP-related trivia that's political or bloggy.

The results are quite entertaining.

I already post about as much personal blather as I want to on this blog, but I like the idea of some trivia about the blog itself.

And so, six bits of trivia about we move to canada.

1. I seriously dislike when people describe we move to canada as "a blog written by an American couple who moved to Canada". I understand the "we" in the title might be slightly deceptive. But I also know it takes less than a minute of reading (proof is in comments here) to learn that my blog is, in fact, written by me. And only me.

2. I started this blog as a way to process my Big Life Change and a way to keep in touch with long-distance friends and family. (The latter has happened only to a very limited extent.) I didn't know anything about the blogosphere. I seriously never imagined that people I didn't know would read my blog. I never imagined that a community would form around wmtc, that I would meet people through it - or that I'd become a blogger. I've really enjoyed how it's developed, organically. It's very gratifying.

3. For quite a while after we moved, everyone we knew in Canada, we met through wmtc. We've since met people through other venues (work, activism), but the people we've known longest, and know best, we met through this blog.

4. I love that wmtc and Allan's blog have some overlap in readership. I enjoy that we are a bloggy couple.

5. For a long time, I was very reluctant on wmtc to criticize anything about Canada. I was afraid I might appear ungrateful, and I wondered if I knew enough to venture an informed opinion. (Another US-to-Canada immigrant I know in the War Resisters Support Campaign told me the same thing about himself.) As I made some observations and stated opinions that were less than wholly positive, reader feedback helped me get over that fear. Wmtc readers helped me realize my opinions and observations were just as valid as anyone else's.

6. Through wmtc, I get a steady stream of email from prospective immigrants to Canada.

Many people write with questions - sometimes broad, general questions about our life here, and sometimes very specific questions about the application process. I am happy to help, but the application is always changing, and everyone is in a slightly different situation, so often my answers are of limited value.

I never mind answering questions, except under two circumstances. But these, I really mind.

One, when people ask questions that they could have easily found if they did a few moments of homework before emailing. When in need of information, some people's first impulse is to use someone else's brain instead of their own. If you can't find something, I'm glad to help, but don't ask me to do your most basic homework for you.

And two, when they don't say thank you. When I help strangers and they do not say thank you, I wish there were some way to take back my answer and make them find out for themselves! A good 90% of people who write me are very appreciative. But man, that 10%...

Now it's your turn:

1. Nigel Patel, with apologies if this was the meme I ignored from you recently! I seriously never do these things.

2. Jere

3. Nick

4. Stacie

5. West End Bob

6. M@

Everyone should feel free to ignore if they prefer.

the results are in!

Thank you so much for making we move to canada the Best Activist Blog in the Canadian F-word Blog Awards!

Wmtc was also runner-up in the Best Political Blog category.

All in all, way cool.

Here's the full list of winners and runners-up.

I was sorry to see Idealistic Pragmatist didn't win Best Political Blog, but I will definitely check out Creekside, who did.

Thanks to everyone who voted, and especially to godammitkitty for nominating wmtc in the Best Activist Blog category. A huge thank you to Pale and Prole of A Creative Revolution for organizing the whole thing. (Terrific video!)

For me, this couldn't have come at a better time. I had a bad writerly rejection this week, and it's good to know I'm reaching someone, somewhere.

Congratulations to every nominee and every winner. Keep on keepin' on.

canadian f-word blog awards: final voting

Today and tomorrow - Friday, February 22, and Saturday, February 23 - you can vote for the blogs of your choice in the Canadian F-Word Blog Awards, the best of the Canadian feminist blogosphere.

Wmtc is a finalist in three categories:

Best Canadian Feminist Blog

Best Activist Blog

and

Best Political Blog. In this category I am voting for Idealistic Pragmatist.

You can vote once from any given IP address, and the organizers say they are checking.

Thank you for getting wmtc to the finals! I'm honoured to be included. Good luck to all the finalists.

Update. Some people haven't been able to vote through these links. (Many have, so give it a try.) If the links I've provided don't work for you, you can try going here, then clicking on each category on the right sidebar.

If that doesn't work, I am out of ideas. Thanks for your persistence!

finalist!

You folks are awesome. Wmtc is a finalist in all three categories for which it was nominated in the Canadian F-Word Blog Awards.

The list of finalists is here.

In the category of Best Political Blog, one of the two other finalists is none other than Idealistic Pragmatist. Our blog-friend IP is without a doubt the better political blogger - in fact, she's my favourite - plus her blog is solely political. So I hope you will vote for her in that category. I will.

The award I would most like to win is Best Activist Blog. Of course you are welcome to vote for wmtc for Best Canadian Feminist Blog, although that seems kind of ridiculous.

Voting is Friday, February 22, and Saturday, February 23. I'll remind you.

Meanwhile, there are lots of terrific blogs on the finalist list. Click around, and maybe develop some new reads.

canadian f-word blog awards

More awards! My most sincere thanks to whoever nominated wmtc for a Canadian F-word Blog Award, highlighting the best of the Canadian feminist blogosphere. I don't know that wmtc deserves these laurels, but if you'd like to vote, wmtc was nominated for:

Best Canadian Feminist Blog

Best Activist Blog

and

Best Political Blog

The full list of nominations is here. Enjoy.