Saturday January 31 , 2015

The Terrifying Terror of Terrorists

Heather Mallick has a piece in the Toronto Star today about what a vengeful nutcase our Prime Minister has become over the years.

It’s positively Michael Harris-esque in its portrayal of the Man Who Would Be Dr. Strangelove.

It’s her opinion that Canadians will pay dearly for the humiliation Stephen Harper suffered as a result of his sojourn in the closet, while a different vengeful nutcase, one armed with a long gun, terrorized Parliament Hill.

And he did. He did terrorize Parliament Hill. (I’m talking about the different vengeful nutcase.) It was terrifying for people out and about that day and certainly for anyone caught in his line of fire. They were terrified. And always now when I think of a man with a gun on the other side of a door behind which unarmed people are cowering in fear for their lives, I think of Reeva Steenkamp.

One of my nearest and dearest was in lockdown. And other people I care about were in lockdown, too. I was very nervous that there was more to it than just one vengeful nutcase armed with a long gun, that there were others involved, that there was a bomb somewhere, that it really was a terrorist threat.

But it wasn’t. And that’s a good thing, right? It wasn’t terrorism come to Canada.

Oh. Of course. It’s “jihadi terrorism” now, isn’t it.

Well, “jihadi” number one used a car to murder someone, “jihadi” number two used a long gun for which we used to have a registry but no longer do, thanks to the vengeful nutcases running the country (into the ground).

But there’s a video he made (the vengeful nutcase with the long gun) prior to his terrifying, but not terrorist, rampage that you’d think would neither be worth seeing nor worth concealing and yet it remains concealed, and conspicuously so, doesn’t it.

If everything that’s terrifying for someone somewhere is going to be labeled terrorism, and if we’re then going to allow the terrified to make laws that take away the rights and freedoms of everybody, what will we do when the vengeful nutcases in power are terrified by the thought of losing it?

Anybody? Anybody? Liberals?


I Can’t Spot the Difference, Can You Spot the Difference?

CBC showed a clip last night of Harper in the situation room plotting military strategy.

Unless he was acting, and I’m thinking of his guest spot on Murdoch Mysteries, he is clearly, obviously madder’n a march  hare.

So good luck to all of us.


To Kill Or Not To Kill, It’s a No-Brainer!

So far I’m doing a decent job of not blogging my book, don’t you think? But it’s expanding beyond the store so I have to be careful not to get into topics that I’ll want to use later, either for this book or the next.

Oh yes, didn’t I tell you? I’m already planning my second and third books. Partly so that I won’t write three books in one.

Gord it’s hard writing a book. I mean, the writing part is easy, it’s the book part that’s hard. Staying on topic, that’s the trick, isn’t it.

Anyway, I like how Stephen Harper speaks on behalf of everybody in Canada now, as if we’re all a bunch of dead-eyed psychopaths comme lui, eh? We’re all so happy about “the troops! the troops! won’t someone please think of the troops!” killing whoever while they do whatever wherever.

Details? We don’t need no stinkin’ details. Kill, kill, kill. We hate peace.

Still, it would be nice if the Opposition would make the connection between tax cuts and what it costs to 1) send troops overseas to kill people, and 2) look after them once they’re back home and all messed up from killing people overseas.



Purple Hearts for All!

American: A citizen of the United States.

Sniper: One who shoots at other people from a concealed place.

Hero: A citizen of the United States who shoots at other people from a concealed place.


Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish

Seriously politicians, you putrescible waste generators, if can’t say anything bad about King Abdullah, then don’t say anything at all, please.


The Age of Death Cults

You’d think we wouldn’t need to know any more than that our government sells armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia that the billionaire funders of Islamic terrorism use against their own brave citizens protesting for some semblance of human rights to realize that those people are just widgets to the powers that be here.

What kind of person votes for that kind of person to represent him in public office in a country where we have all the freedom in the world to not vote for that person? I mean, if it was just greed, maybe, maybe I could understand his motivation. But it’s been pretty clear for quite a while that only a handful of Canadians are actually getting richer the longer the current crop of politicians are in power federally, while the rest of us are slowly but surely being downsized with less and less choice when it comes to our money making prospects.

The CEO of Target just got a pay out that totaled more than all the severance for laid off Target employees combined, for instance. But even if Target wasn’t going, going, gone, did having it here improve the bottom line for retail workers any?

No, no it did not.

It’s discouraging, watching the news, because of course manufacturing in Ontario isn’t going to spring back into action now that oil prices in Alberta are low. It’s gone, the manufacturing sector, like Zellers is gone, gone to where the lowest price is the only law that matters. And we’re left with less choice as to how we make money. That’s the result of all the razzamatazz.

Less choice for citizens in an unbalanced economy where choice is really the only bargaining chip we have left, where corporations have the rights of citizens without having to actually wake up and smell the coffee every morning here with us.

People say that retail was always like this. Except that it wasn’t because it was a full-time salaried job and the people doing it were salespeople, not people laid off from this or that who find ourselves paid by the hour for part-time shifts that cover groceries and that’s about it. And there were other jobs that weren’t sales and/or service to balance the economy we all lived and worked in and paid taxes to and so on and so forth and more of the same etc etc.

There’s no balance, that’s the problem, except for the death cults that seem to be in power whether they’re undemocratically entrenched despots there or democratically elected here.




Apples to Oranges to Fruit

Speaking of humour, or not, as in a sense of, I commented on a thread a while back and my hilarity didn’t go over well, but I noticed this morning another thread had showed up on my Facebook page.

It’s about a wealthy couple profiled in the Globe on Friday, seeking financial advice because although they have a $1M lot newly purchased, they don’t have the money necessary to build a house on it.

And normally I’d make fun of them but a lady columnist for the Globe, initials T.S., was already there not only not making fun of them, but kind of calling out commenters, in a reasonable tone, for being so angry at them.

I respect her opinions so I took the time to read them and had to accept once again that many of us have a terrible tendency to define the choices of others as good or bad, not just based on who they are, but also based on certain blanket assumptions of what’s good and what’s bad.

But I also realized in reading the case history of the privileged offspring in question that their choices mirror the choices made by my me and my ex (and by me and my ex, I mean me) back in the day, except that they involve a lot more money and a different category of privilege.

And on closer scrutiny, it is clear even to a more or less socialist like me that many of the comments criticizing their choices would have been unacceptable to the people making them, I’m sure, if they were to read those same comments directed at me and my ex back in the day by, say, Conrad Black.

Interestingly, too, I actually had more cash handy in the bank back then than they do now, cash that was making a helluva lot more interest, too.

For a run-of-the-mill middle-class girl I did a pretty good job of making money on my money, I must say, so thank you to whoever told me to keep socking it away in a high interest GiC.

It’s divorce that has the biggest impact on a couple’s financial future, I think, and yet there was nothing by way of financial advice for them there. And really, having sought it because of a cash flow problem, they must be disappointed to realize that the advice boiled down to a purchase pitch for a term life insurance policy.

Another (minimum) of $600/month. But, you know, when you’re paying for private educations for five young children and a nanny and one parent has opted to work as a physician only one day per week and teach only one day per week at a university, so he can be at home more often than not, well, a term life insurance policy is probably a good idea.

(She’s a dentist currently on maternity leave.)

Anyway, it all comes across as perfectly egregious until someone points out that it’s really not. And when that someone is someone whose opinions you respect, it all becomes less and less egregious until, wait a minute, they’re really not so different from you and I.

At least, they’re really not so different from me and my ex. Even the private education thing parallels our decision to buy a house near a specific school so our kids could get a bilingual education, come home for lunch, and so on and so forth and more of the same etc etc.

There it seems to end, at least for me, because of unemployment followed by underemployment and not much by way of retirement income at a time of life when it’s too late to make it up.

But throw out the concept of retirement (as he does in the piece) and we’re back in it together.

It’s interesting, how much more alike we are than different, isn’t it. Here’s the piece:




Vajayjays Need Not Apply

There are a lot of opinion pieces making the rounds of social media asking why the #JeSuisCharlie crowd cares more about 12 murdered journalists in Paris, than it does about an entire murdered village in Nigeria.

The question is rhetorical, I believe.

How do I know that when I haven’t read any of them?

I can tell from the titles. They all have words arranged to read, more or less, “It’s Racist, That’s Why”.

Although not sexist, strangely enough, in spite of the fact that many of the murdered in one location must have been female, while none of the murdered in another were.

I mean, you know, not to put too fine a point on it, but, from the looks of it, Boko Haram has a better chance of being hired to draw satirical cartoons in France than I do.

And a way better chance in Canada where “Must be able to draw cartoons with your OWN dick” is on the application form.

And I call myself a Feminist.

(I’m serious about the application form. Strap-ons are not allowed so just forget about it, lady drawers.)

But what’s interesting, for me, anyway, is that by deliberately not reading these opinion pieces (I mute Rex Murphy now, too, as soon as the At Issue panel is done on Thursday night’s The National, so I didn’t find out until later that he had devoted his lecture to asking a variation of the rhetorical? question of the day) I don’t feel like I have to answer to the accusation that I only care about white men, or satirical cartoonists, or white men who are satirical cartoonists.

Gee, I wonder if it says “Must be able to point with your OWN dick” on the application form for Public Broadcaster Pontificator.

Because, from the looks of it, Boko Haram has a better chance of being hired than I do for that job, too.



A Little Juxtaposition, Please

Colour me radical (just kidding, don’t, I like freedom) but I think part of the problem our security agencies may be having in focusing resources on actual terrorist threats is that they work for politicians who believe that a girl camping out on the side of a mountain in hopes of protecting it from industrial development is the same security threat to Canadians as a psychotic young man with a gun who wants to go out in a blaze of homicidal glory.


Target, We Hardly Knew Ye

I find it more than a little disturbing that I could see this Target thing coming pretty much as soon as I was aware that an American chain that sounded almost exactly like Zellers would be taking over all its stores up here in Canada once Zellers was out of business.

What is it about the phrase “out of business” that retail chains aren’t clear on?

Anyway, somebody must be making money somewhere. But if it isn’t you, and it isn’t me, who the hell is it?