Kucinich's Wife
Yeah. Sure. What a guy. But somewhere out there is a lonely lady fugly looking for her mate.
Anyway, I'd be more impressed if she was the fugly little guy running for political office and he was the statuesque redhead backing her up.
|
« October 2007 | Main | December 2007 »
November 29, 2007
It's NOT The Science, Stupid
Okay, here's a question I have about the politics of greenhouse gas emissions and carbon credit trading and develped vs developing countries: Who would it really hurt to have everybody under one agreement umbrella?
Because something tells me it would NOT be the poor who would suffer in having to meet a set of global targets on greenhouse gas emissions - even though that is exactly the reasoning being used by the political Center right on over to wherever the Left is (right beside the Center, unfortunately) as to why developing countries deserve their pollution time now to catch up to us over here in the West - developmentwise.
I mean, look at China. Its poor are choking under the weight of pollution while the rich live an insulated existence in air conditioned comfort. And since so many of those people getting rich are actually Westerners getting richer, well, I say it's a crock to pretend that the exemption is for the sake of the poor.
In fact, I can't believe anyone is buying that load of shit in this day and age. We should know better by now. Rich people do not get rich by caring about poor people. They absolutely get rich by caring more about money than any other Gawddamned thing in the entire universe - including life everlasting. Because everybody knows, the meek shall inherit the Earth.
Which, of course, will be uninhabitable on account of, for some bizarre reason, everybody figured the rich, who got rich from development in this part of the world, should now get another kick at the development can in China.
They Almost Had Me
You know, I was almost starting to believe that Hugo Chavez was a madman, paranoid, delusional, powercrazed (well, I still believe that one) - but check this out:
CIA Operation "Pliers" Uncovered in Venezuela
Chile, anyone?
Calling All Terrorists!
This is just an idea, not a suggestion, but maybe we could ask the TERRORISTS! to go after Taser International. Afterall, TERRORISTS! probably aren't afraid of being sued. And, well, Taser International seems to have a lot of backing from law enforcement agencies, even though several law enforcement officers are suing it, so, it makes sense to me that we hook up with the evil-doers on this one. I mean, what's the worst that could happen?
That's the question Canadians need to start asking themselves, by the way. Not "what would Jesus do?". That question sucks. We have to start asking "what's the worst that could happen?" And if the worst is that a bunch of Taser International thugs hunt you down and try to scare the shit out of you for questioning the safety of its product, well, according to one former employee of Taser International, that's already happened - and she lived to tell about it.
So yeah, our government isn't going to do anything about this threat to society, so maybe the TERRORISTS! can help.
RCMP Starts Character Assassination Campaign
RCMPTravelsToPolandToProveDziekanskiDeservedToDie
Well, how would YOU put it? I suppose there's, "RCMP Justifies Murder of Possible Terrorist" or "RCMP Sensed Man Was Criminal And THAT'S Why It Killed Him" or "RCMP Didn't Like Cut of Man's Jib So It Tasered Him To Death".
Seriously, I hope the RCMP finds out all kinds of stuff it tries to use in order to smear Dziekanski's reputation. We need to know how low this organization is willing to go to know what we're up against. Keep on keepin' on, RCMP. Tell Canadians and the world all about Dziekanski's life over in Poland before he came to a country where police use tasers to kill people and then invent the reasons why.
Because, trust me, you're telling us everything we need to know about you, just by being you.
November 28, 2007
HIV/AIDS & Political Correctalness
Okay. What the fuck is up with "MSM" suddenly meaning homosexual? Sorry, eh - but "MSM" already means "Mainstream Media".
Men who have sex with men are known as homosexual, or, more likely, "gay".
Of course, gay also means, "Fill in the blank is so gay" (marriage, Christmas, The Sopranos, bubble tea, etc) so gays may want to either stay away from things that are gay so as not to be confused with them, or get a new word to describe what they do with their penises (penii?) - nevermind - cocks.
Geez Louise, no wonder the rate of HIV is rising amongst gays in "developed" countries. How the hell are they supposed to know they're homosexual anymore? And by "developed" countries I assume we mean "here" - as in, not Africa, where - we know, we know - AIDS is a heterosexual disease, uh, just like here but more - way more. Gawd. You know, you can bend over backwards too far and actually end up with your head up your ass if you aren't careful. Seriously. I worked at the NDP. I know these things can happen.
Although, just for the record, you can't actually get AIDS by sticking your own head up your ass.
Faith Based Schools
Remember the last provincial election when John Tory was roundly criticized, particularly by Dalton McGuinty - the winner of the campaign, such as it was - for ingenuously or disingenuously suggesting that all faith based schools be brought under the public education funding umbrella?
Well, given the recent banning of The Golden Compass by a Catholic school board (because its author is an atheist, apparently) and now this: TakingAPageFromIran'sBookOnHomosexuality I think what we've got here in Ontario is faith based schools under the public education funding umbrella.
And I think we can say that unequivocally now. So what gives, Ontari-ari-ari-o? Because it seems to me we are voting for one very faith based government if we are going to tolerate this kind of bigotry in our education system.
It is, afterall, OUR education system and I don't think public funds should be used to promote Vatican propaganda to Ontario's children.
Enough already. Get the Church out of our schools. Now.
November 27, 2007
Day 2 of The Agenda on Israel/Palestine
Well, I watched Day 2 of The Agenda's week long program on Israel/Palestine. It featured an all Palestinian panel discussing the chances of Annapolis resulting in anything much. Up until tonight, I would have said, unequivocally, that the Palestinians should try to get whatever result is possible from any kind of negotiations, given their current plight, but after tonight's show, I'd equivocate.
That's because, a map, showing the shrinking area under Palestinian control over the years, tells a story that is in direct conflict with any claim that Israel has been anything less than aggressive in its takeover of Palestinian land.
It was telling, too, that the normally unflappable host lost his cool with a fairly uncompromising Palestinian guest who, when asked for his opinion on the claim that Israelis and Palestinians held inverse positions on accommodation of each other (based on an interview with an Israeli writer that had been taped previously and in which he very convincingly portrayed Israelis as being overwhelmingly more open to accommodating Palestinians than vice versa) said something along the lines of, "Well, just look at the map and you can see that what Israelis may say they want and what Israel actually does are completely contradictory".
He looked to be pretty right on, too. It was embarassingly obvious that he was, actually. So unless the writer was completely full of shit, and I don't think he was because he really seemed to believe he was telling the truth, then it looks like it's time for Israelis to vote for governments that respect their wish to accomodate Palestinians, rather than governments that take over more and more of their land while stripping them of their civil, and often, human, rights.
Addendum
Oh, and the argument that it's only fair of us to let the developing world develop first before we demand it cut its greenhouse gas emissions? Well, that's awfully white of us for these global village times we're all living in - isn't it?
Is It My Imagination?
Or is the climate changing faster by the day?
Because here's the thing, I believe that the climate is changing, that we are responsible, and that we need to stop burning fossil fuels in as much as it is humanly possible in order to save our one and only home from heating up to the point where it can no longer sustain us.
All of us.
But I have trouble with who it is telling us, loudest and most forcefully, that we need to sign on to accords and agreements that seem only to be in the interests of appearing to do something about a worldwide problem, by buying and selling carbon credits, rather than doing something worldwide to deal with a worldwide problem and actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions - worldwide.
I mean, it's become a little ridiculous, hasn't it? Demanding a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from a relatively small, but developed, population on one side of the world, while the other side of the world, the side with all the people, continues to develop and pollute at a rate hitherto unknown in the history of the planet - development that totally negates any efforts made over on this side of the world to reduce its pollution by polluting more than ever over on the other side of the world?
Oh, and have you heard the latest? The long lasting (supposedly - who knows, though, really) mercury lightbulbs we've all just replaced our incandescent lightbulbs with are made in China. It's true. I read it on Canada's best blog: smalldeadanimalsRus
Anyway, I believe in science and the science of climate change makes a lot of sense to me. I just hope it doesn't turn out to make a lot of cents for the very people saying we have to act now and act fast before the climate changes again and we miss the chance to reduce all our greenhouse gases by buying credits from a big box of carbon, somewhere.
See, it's not the science - it's everything else about climate change that has me shaking my head.
Anything, Give Us Anything
"We've come together this week because we share a common goal - two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security," Bush said in a speech Monday night at a State Department dinner for the summit's participants.
Yeah. We want that, but what the hell do they want - there's the rub.
Anyway, I followed this timely timeline and came to an unpleasant realization:
The realization was that Sadat and Rabin were both assassinated by one of their own following signed peace agreements with the enemy.
Although, the Presidents behind both agreements were Democrats and the assassinated were both moderates, so... maybe this time will be different.
Yes. Let's go with that one, that this time will be different. Afterall, it's not like expectations aren't so modest as to be barely perceptible. And that's probably a good thing.
Canadian Museum of Canadian Rights
You read it right. Instead of building a Canadian Museum of Human Rights in Winnipeg, I suggest taxpayers opt out of any agreement our New Conservative Government of Canada has made on our behalves, to build a Canadian Museum of Canadian Rights instead. I know it sounds selfish and not very caring about, well, the olden days lack of human rights, but given what's gone down with the Security and Prosperity Partnership - so far, I think we'd better get on it sooner rather than later.
You know, it's hard to imagine, really, why a New Conservative government would think 30 CEOs would negotiate ANYTHING that wasn't directly in their personal financial interests, eh? I mean, it should know these people and what they're all about. Afterall, they're the same people who put New Conservative governments in power.
Anyway, I hate to single out the Aspers and their charity works/mega monuments, but since they've secured lots of taxpayer $$$s already for the Canadian Museum of Human Rights, I figure they could... oh... wait... they wouldn't be able to get any private investment $$$s for a Canadian Museum of Canadian Rights to make it much of a public/private sort of endeavour, would they.
Sigh.
Well, maybe they can add a new wing to the Canadian Museum of Human Rights for Canada in the days before the Security and Prosperity Partnership was negotiated. It could even have a little plaque at the entrance "Paid For With Canadian Tax Dollars", so we'd all feel like we'd done our part to honour our past.
November 26, 2007
Prissy Priscilla
When I worked at the NDP, the office was littered (literally, alas) with the bad news of the left some lefties (and I'm not one) thrive on - lots of angry, bleak columns peppered with hopeless, dreary asides about Conservative Canada. One day, I came upon a co-worker reading the Toronto Sun. "What the hell?" I asked. To which she responded, "If you want to know who the enemy is, read the enemy".
Well, Dear Reader, if you want to know who Conservative Canada is, read this:
And now please tell me how it is that the NDP is considered too fringe to vote for by most Canadians.
Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em
I probably shouldn't post this because then the Taliban will know how stupid our Minister of Defence is, but, well - I don't really care what the Taliban thinks, so:
Waning support for the mission in Afghanistan is a weapon in the hands of the Taliban, said Defence Minister Peter MacKay during a stop in Edmonton yesterday."The Taliban are very intelligent - they read newspapers, they go on the Internet.
"When they see Canadian resolve weaken, that's when they up their effort," MacKay said in a speech at the Mayfield Inn and Suites.
Okay. SooeySays, "No, it isn't". And, "What Canadian resolve?"
"Resolve", Mr. Minister, is an American word that is used by the President of the United States to describe what Americans need for the War in Iraq.
This is Canada, Mr. Minister. And we're in Afghanistan. Sooey's advice is to pick a new word to describe whatever you think it is that is weakening in Canadians such that it causes the Taliban to up its effort.
Or maybe just shut up.
Yes, Yes - Tasers Are Bad
No!No!No! Tasers are NOT the reason why the public's confidence in the RCMP is eroded:
RCMPComplaintsCommissionerPutsAFingerToTheWind
The information seems certain to further fuel the furor over Mr. Dziekanski's death, which so far has focused almost entirely on the safety of tasers and the actions of police officers.The growing controversy was reflected yesterday in comments by RCMP complaints commissioner Paul Kennedy, who said the critical bond between the public and police is being damaged.
Yet public support for the police is essential to maintaining public safety, Mr. Kennedy reminded the CTV program Question Period.
Public confidence in the RCMP has eroded because the RCMP misrepresents the truth to the public on a regular enough basis that the public no longer trusts in its version of what happened when something goes wrong enough to reflect badly on the force.
Cripes, I don't think we even trust in the RCMP enough to believe its version of what happened when something goes RIGHT for the force.
See, in this current crisis involving the use of Tasers, it's not so much that the RCMP clearly used excessive force in the subduing of someone who wasn't even a suspect in any sort of crime and who presented no real threat to anyone - excessive force which resulted in the man's death - it's that it lied about it. I mean, if we didn't have a video of the RCMP actually killing this man, Tasering him to death, we would only have the RCMP's version of what happened and, although we would be suspicious based on previous RCMP versions of what went down at any other given time that turned out to be somewhere south of the truth, we would have to accept it as, well, the RCMP's version of what happened.
So, at this point, it's not about Tasers - which we all know are lethal weapons, not non-lethal weapons as Taser International claims they are - and yes, we can all see how the RCMP defence is being set up to play out (I mean, if I was a lawyer for the RCMP officers responsible for Robert Dziekanski's death I'd sure as hell be pointing my finger at Taser International) - it's about the essential and very correct lack of trust we have in the RCMP to tell us the truth.
But this is where, for me, the government comes into the picture. Because the government, if not the RCMP, is supposed to work for us, Canadians, the people who pay its salary, the people who elected it to represent us - ALL of us. And what we're getting back from the New Conservative Government of Canada with regards to the death of Robert Dziekanski by RCMP officers using Tasers purchased with taxpayer dollars from Taser International is a lot of New Conservatism and not much else.
It's the government that should be demanding answers - for us - of the RCMP, of Taser International, maybe even of Vancouver airport security. We've got a video of the event - we know what happened - we're way past eroded trust in the RCMP, Mr. Complaints Commissioner. Now we need our government to step outside its New Conservative ideology and take the lead in asking a lot of hard questions of itself and who it does business with and why the RCMP continues to lie to the public about what happens under its watch. This government, this New Conservative Government of Canada claims to be all about law and order, peace and security, and yet it clearly isn't because it refuses to take responsibility even for something as straightforward as the Tasering death of Robert Dziekanski.
Watch the video, Mr. Prime Minister - and proceed from there, please. Your Evangelical Christian heart will surely lead you in the right direction.
November 24, 2007
Hunting, Literally
I check smalldeadanimals every day, mostly to tsk tsk to myself and marvel at the comments some people feel comfortable making on the internet (and I say - go for it - I like to know who's supporting the New Conservative Government of Canada - who the enemy is so to speak), but this entry by Kate McMillan caught my eye because, well, there's a big photograph of her in the back of the truck, smiling and standing over her supper:
Anyway, I am mildly intrigued by hunters, their motivation, etc, and I was doing okay until I read a comment about a doe having been hit, but not bagged (I dunno - is "bagged" the right word?). And, full disclosure, I'm seriously on my way to becoming vegetarian and/or a just a couple of times/week consumer of organic free range meat (except that organic doesn't necessarily mean free range, does it - and I don't care about the organic so much as I care about the free range) as a political statement against factory farming, so, yeah - I figure I'm more in favour of hunting than factory farming - like, if that's how we ALL get our meat. Otherwise, it just seems to add to the killing fields, as far as I can tell:
Before anyone gets too congratulatory, I did not shoot this one. (I did hit a doe the first morning, but she eluded us despite 3 hours of tracking.)But as far as this buck goes - I pushed about 10 miles of bush over 2 days, had it in my sights at one point but held off as I didn't have a clear line of fire, and helped drag the SOB out of the bush. And it wears my tag. I think I earned the right to claim at least part of the credit. :)
Posted by: Kate at November 22, 2007 8:31 PM
Now see, THAT bugs me because now I'm worried about the doe dying a slow agonizing death out in the woods. The quick kill I'm okay with, I guess, but what about the hunter who just shoots an animal and doesn't kill it? It's like... well... it reminds me a bit of people who think torture is okay under some circumstances, that if it's done as a means to an end - legally - it's actually a good thing because, well, it just is - as long as you're not the one being tortured, of course. And it's not like the deer can shoot back. (Okay. I'm mixing the analogy too much, aren't I.)
But there was another comment I found intriguing:
I used to do a little hunting (just partridge)when I was a kid. I loved "the hunt" but never cared too much about "the killing" or the eating (what little I've tasted of game is too gamey for my tastes).I think the hunt evokes long lost primal hunting instincts and the killing evokes other primal instincts.
TJ, this is the way of life on this planet. There are predators and there are prey. The prey consume the vegetation and breed a lot...and the predators hunt and kill the prey. If it weren't for a human with a rifle, the deer would be hunted by wolves...or by Chevrolets...or slowly die of nalnutrition...or, likely rarely, live in a utopian dream existence.
You don't have to like it...but, to each his/her own, though, eh? I can't understand why anyone would waste their time listening to RAP...you can't understand why people hunt. You need to be more "tolerant", son. ;)
Posted by: Eeyore at November 23, 2007 7:09 AM
True. Deer face the hazard of traffic and we face the hazard of deer in the traffic. Very true. Dying of malnutrition because their habitat is so over developed that their numbers can't really be supported by vegetation? Also true. And wolves. Well, they just aren't that hungry, I guess. Or... do we have any wolves left?
But this is what really got me - what's with the justification in there for killing deer because they (we assume) don't have a utopian dream existence, anyway?
I mean, wasn't that many a Conservative pundit's justification for invading Afghanistan as we did - that Afghans didn't have much to live for anyway, so what the hell - we could only improve their lives in the end? Even if several were lost in the process?
That's what I worried about in the beginning, the pundits who were saying they didn't have much in Afghanistan, anyway, so - what the hell. Because I kept worrying about the Afghans who at least had their lives and maybe even a goat and there we were (and by "we" I mean the Americans with their air strikes followed by us on the ground) - taking away "all that", too. Maybe because we have so much we just can't imagine life being worth living without... what? All our crap?
I dunno. I didn't intend to make an analogy between hunter arguments and the War on Terror, but if people really believe there are two forms of life on this planet, prey and predator, then we're in bigger trouble than I thought. Because if we're living in a world where we justify predatory actions based on the assumption that our prey has nothing much to live for anyway - because they don't have a lot of crap - I think we just might be the bad guys I keep hearing about from the President of the United States straight on down to the Prime Minister of Canada.
November 23, 2007
Why're You Hatin' On Us, Girl?
You know, I yadda yadda a lot on Sooey's and I'm sure I've offended more'n a few people - which in turn causes me to yadda yadda worser'n ever - sort of an Internet version of that scene in Annie Hall when Woody Allen rips up his driver's licence because the cop tells him to "just hand it to me" and Woody Allen's saying while he's ripping it up "I would but I have trouble with authority".
And the offended almost never have a sense of humour, so it's not like I'd make any sense to a passerby hoping to be offended. And Gawd forbid I should try my hand at satire and screw up so badly I end up in some passerby's sights and hauled up before the Canadian Human Rights Commission to defend myself.
Paranoia is why I no longer have a comments section, Dear Reader. These are accusatory times we are living in and everybody, it seems, has a finger to point. And a lot of time to kill cruising the Internet and looking for political views to be offended by.
You know what I really don't get, though (and I've never actually gone to an Internet hate site, as far as I know, so I'm just guessing here), is how do you decide WHICH poster you're going to make a complaint against when you visit one? I mean, wouldn't ALL the posts be offensive at Stormfront? Isn't the whole site offensive?
But what if you were new to the Internet and happened upon Stormfront and you thought it was all a big joke and you posted all kinds of awful stuff thinking "people can't possibly believe this racist sexist vile disgusting stew of bile" and then some guy who's looking for really super extra offensive posts so he'll have an open and shut case to bring before the CHRT cruises by and there you are "HateyTheHater".
So yeah, this whole thing about Jessica Beaumont not having proper legal counsel bothers me. It bothers me a lot, actually. In this specific case, too, I can't imagine that Jessica Beaumont showing up with Paul Fromm (I googled to see if he was related to Squeaky - he's not, but he's still pretty bad) helped her case any, such as it was.
I dunno. It's all good, I suppose, rounding up racists, fining them for posting hate speech on the Internet. It does seem like a pretty stupid thing to do - posting hate speech on the Internet. Still, it makes for an easy round up when you're looking to catch them on Internet hate sites. And an easy conviction if they don't have legal representation when their case is heard.
{{{Hugs Everybody - I Love You}}}
Commissions and the Like
There's an argument in the Blogosphere (say what?) going on RIGHT NOW!! regarding a recently settled case involving hate speech that was brought to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It involves one Jessica Beaumont and several internet postings she made that were decidely unpleasant:
Between October 2003 and May 2006, Beaumont, writing under the pseudonym "Jessy Destruction," posted more than 1,000 messages on the Canadian forum of Stormfront.org, a U.S. neo-Nazi website. The messages included racial epithets, white supremacist literature and hatred directed against blacks, homosexuals, immigrants and Jews.
I've never been to Stormfront, but I can't imagine, given it's a neo-Nazi website, that MOST posts wouldn't be decidely unpleasant, so, I guess to get singled out as Ms. Beaumont was - is a kind of... distinction.
Of particular note, were the following two Leviticus (he's the guy beside Moses in the funny hat, I think) quotes from the Bible she posted which were decided to be hate speech - against gays. (The Bible is a well-known work of historical fiction. Gays are men who lie with other men as other men lie with women, but not those other men who sometimes lie with women as they would lie with men if they were lying (laying?) with men, I guess):
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.LEVITICUS 18:22
If a man lies with man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
LEVITICUS 20:13
Anyway, Ms. Beaumont was found guilty by the Canadian Human Rights Commission and fined, yadda yadda yadda, and the Blogoshere (the Blogosphere is free Punditry on the Internet) exploded with moral outrage because the Right fringe of the blogosphere is defending her right to freedom of speech, and, in particular, her right to religious expression, while the rest of the Blogosphere is saying "If it's hate speech - it's hate speech and we have laws against hate speech".
Which brings us to Sooey's high horse, Dear Reader, a horse so high - no one ever sees us charging out of the Blogosphere until it's too late and - clop, clop... plop - there we are asking: What the hell is up with this?!:
[2] The Canadian Human Rights Commission participated at the hearing and was represented by legal counsel. Mr. Warman and Ms. Beaumont appeared and testified at the hearing. They were not represented by legal counsel, but Ms. Beaumont was assisted by an agent, Paul Fromm, who is not a lawyer. Mr. Fromm indicated at the opening of the hearing that he was offering her "some assistance", having been involved as an intervenor in a number of cases regarding s. 13 of the Act. Mr. Fromm emphasized that he was not in a position to provide Ms. Beaumont with "proper legal counsel". As her agent, he made an opening statement, examined and cross-examined witnesses, and presented final arguments on her behalf.
I dunno, but there's something seemingly unjust about a legal proceeding that has the full weight of the state on the prosecuting side while the defending side doesn't even have legal counsel.
Don't you think? Am I totally out to lunch on this? I mean, this was a pretty easy one, I guess, but isn't that when we should make it a hard one by at least affording the defendant proper legal counsel? I mean - c'mon? Where are we, anyway? Canada? Or stuck in the middle of an Orwell novel?
November 22, 2007
Maybe It's Time To Taser Taser International
Our tax dollars support Taser International. I'd like our New Conservative Government of Canada to do something about that misuse of public funds:
AnExTaserInt'lEmployeeSpeaksOut
Pam Schreiner, who worked for the Arizona-based maker of the electric-shock weapons in 2004, says she was threatened and intimidated, including her home being shot at, after she saw company officials intentionally shredding Taser injury reports during a legal proceeding, according to court documents."Since leaving Taser International, I have lived in fear of what Taser International will do to me. The company has enormous resources and connections through law enforcement," Ms. Schreiner says in an affidavit sworn this summer and filed in a court in Georgia.
That's one brave lady.
"What Was She Thinking?"
That's the name of the book by Zoe Heller that inspired the movie "Notes on a Scandal". I read it in pretty much one go - it's that good. As always, the book brings to life the characters so much better than a movie can - and it's really a character study more than anything - so it's worth reading whether or not you've seen the movie. Interestingly, the casting was perfect - although I saw the movie before I read the book. In any case, it's striking how hypocritical we are about honesty, what we don't want people to say, how little we really want to know how they feel. And love? Well, follow your heart at your peril.
The Opposite of Racism
We are discussing this article by Jonathan Kay in the National Post on the Sooey's forum:
JKAsksWhyPeopleThinkHe'sRacist
It was written in response to a conference he attended called: "Combating Hatred" in which he was featured as a guest star due to this article:
Now, even the most cursory of glances at the article will reveal Mr. Kay to have one of those points of view that, well, there's really no point in arguing with him because right at the outset he says this:
Many aboriginal advocates claim that racism is the main barrier facing natives. I would say it's the opposite: We somehow have convinced ourselves that native societies have the collective, superhuman ability to resist the gravitational socioeconomic forces governing every other society on Earth. Like all utopian experiments, this one has led to disaster and heartache -- played out in everything from water contamination to glue-sniffing to abused children.
Okay. I don't know what the opposite of racism is, either, I guess - but I know it's not that. And since his leap off point is that the reservation system is a utopian experiment gone awry, I'm not sure there's much point in reading further. (I'm just being kind - there's not - although some of the other people at the conference sound like assholes, too - not that they make JK seem like any less of one - so yeah - there's not much point in reading further.)
Anyway, the whole thing got me to thinking about how pointless it is to argue with rightwingers about what's racism and what's not - which I do a lot of because I have a really hard time letting things drop - and to thinking about why that is.
Well, Dear Reader, it's because rightwingers really do believe, essentially, that:
1) Arabs = Predisposition to terrorism
2) Blacks = Predisposition to crime
3) Natives = Predisposition to alcohol abuse
4) Whites = Predisposition to political correctness that must be countered at every turn
And number 4, I believe, is what rightwingers think is the opposite of racism.
November 21, 2007
Oh, Now I Get It
I guess Stockwell Day was talking about this case then he wondered why Canadians aren't as outraged by the daily toll taken by drunk drivers on our roads as we are about RCMP officers Tasering people to death:
Well, yeah. That's pretty bad. I mean, I'm sure the cop feels pretty awful, too, about having killed someone while drunk driving - who wouldn't. It's the rest of it that makes me mad, the obvious covering up and non disclosuring of facts by ALL the cops involved in the investigation, the fact that one of the cops has been promoted since the incident, and this:
Info request refusedTHE Free Press submitted a request under the Manitoba Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to Winnipeg police for notes, statements and reports on their involvement in the Harvey-Zenk case.
The request was submitted to learn what information city police had gathered from the officers who were with Harvey-Zenk on the day Crystal Taman was killed.
It was refused on three points:
1) It was an unreasonable invasion of privacy.
2) The information requested was compiled by police as part of an investigation to be disclosed only at prosecution.
3) Disclosure of the information could negatively affect the conduct of existing or anticipated legal proceedings.
I mean, transparency matters - particularly where there has been wrongdoing by a police officer or a group of police officers. Because, otherwise, citizens end up not being able to trust the police. And that's when we become like one of those other countries we think we're so much better than that we actually invade them to prove it.
A New Definition for the UN
I came up with an addition for the new millennium standard definition of the UN yesterday - purely by accident - the new millennium standard definition of the UN being, of course "It's Better Than Nothing" (which replaced the old millennium standard definition of, "It's The Best We've Got").
Someone had posted this story on my forum: SumCrookedGuy-NotNamedMulroneyOrSchreiber about a gangster who had ties to these gangs:
During the trial court heard that Mr. Tahvili boasted of having connections with Triads, the Hell's Angels and the UN gang, which gets its name from its multi-ethnic make up.
Leading me to add: "And bureaucratic malignancy combined with an almost unbelievably incompetent inertia".
Which, of course, should not in any way negate the new millennium definition of "It's Better Than Nothing". I just think every once in a while we should add to the definition a bit to get closer to what the UN actually is.
Defending Tasers
Okay. I'm not a REAL lawyer (or REAL anything, come to think of it...) but if I was, I'd be telling everybody to shut the fuck up about Tasers and training and using Tasers after training and focus on the fact that Tasers ARE NOT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS!!!!
I mean, why the living hell are the New Conservative Government of Canada and the RCMP still defending the damn things instead of the thugs, er, officers who used them to kill AN INNOCENT MAN!!!
Good Gawd in Heaven. An RCMP officer is actually suing over injuries he sustained during a Taser training exercise, ferchrissakes. Shouldn't that be the line of defence that everybody is taking here? I mean what's going on? Is Taser International a subsidiary of Haliburton or something? Is the Devil the CEO?
What gives?!
Yeah, yeah - we know the RCMP is fucked up. We know police cannot be trusted. Saskatchewan police drove a native man out into the middle of nowhere on a freezing cold winter night and left him there to die. We know these things about police. We know the RCMP lied already at least once in this current case of Taser use because we have a video of the actual.. arrest? The officers weren't acting in self-defence, there'd been no attack to justify the use of enough force to kill the... suspect? They lied. They clearly used their Tasers because they had them on hand to use.
So really, their only defence here is that they were led to believe that Tasers are non-lethal weapons that can be safely used to subdue an agitated suspect. Otherwise, they look so screamingly guilty of... well... let's just say I don't understand the line of defence so far.
November 20, 2007
Intent Matters
You know, I've just naturally assumed that the RCMP officers responsible for the death of Robert Dziekanski had no intent to kill him - but I haven't watched the video. It's a terrible thing to contemplate - but what if they did? I mean, as a Canadian, I feel comfortable having a certain degree of trust in our law enforcement officers, that they aren't just psychotic killers on the loose - but what if they are?
In the meantime, I've noticed (you probably have, too) that no one in a position of ultimate responsibility for the safety and security of Canadian citizens (hello New Conservative Government of Canada) has demanded - or even suggested - that police should no longer be allowed to use tasers. I find that very odd. A man died because he was tasered. And yet, tasers are still being used by police officers as if they are non-lethal weapons of defence.
Clearly, they aren't. So, why isn't the government stepping up and doing something about this dangerous situation? For that matter, why aren't all our governments stepping up to demand that police forces across the country hand in their tasers? Afterall, there were NO taser-related deaths before police started using them. And why, too, aren't we suing the company that manufactured and sold the weapons to police forces all across North America? Obviously, it made false claims about its product - or there wouldn't have been ANY people killed by police using tasers as non-lethal weapons of defence.
Really, what the hell are governments for, anyway? Why do we bother paying our taxes? Because we bought those tasers for our police forces to be used as non-lethal weapons of defence but, in fact, they're being used to kill us.
Who knows? Maybe the plan is to do it one tasering at a time.
I dunno. But I think, to be on the safe side, our government(s) should demand that everybody hand in their taser and then the New Conservative Government of Canada should go to the manufacturer who sold us the lot and demand our money back.
AT THE VERY LEAST!!!!
November 19, 2007
The New Liberal Party of Canada
That's my suggestion for Stephane Dion - a Party name change to: The New Liberal Party of Canada. And do it before the inquiry, which some unelected foreign affairs critic is suggesting should have a narrow focus:
I mean, I agree with him, I guess. But still. Shut up.
Buff Enuff?
Everybody's so buff these days I figure slackers are going to be the new "What's Sexy".
Balanced Reporting
Somebody should tell the Media that balanced reporting is NOT "yabbutting" about the victim when there are accusations of misconduct against authorities.
Geez Louise. We're in Canada, you're a free press, it's the powers-that-be, Stupid.
Mulroney and Schreiber - Updated To Be Meaner
Since we know, in spite of many denials, that Mulroney and Schreiber actually had quite a partnership - why isn't it the assumption that they still do - perhaps even of the mutual blackmail variety? (And really, aren't all government/business partnerships of the mutual blackmail variety - eventually?)
I mean, the drawn out extradition "will he talk or won't he" nonsense with Schreiber and the "one more time with the misunderestimated great man" tour of Brian Mulroney sure smell of something to me - something with rat and weasel.
It's like they're competing for Man of the Year - in Gotham City.
Who knows, maybe the partnership involves the New Conservative Party of Canada now, too. We know already it probably involves some Old Liberals. Maybe there's a whole stew still a brewin' on a back burner what's had a bunch of gophers tossed in of late.
Here's hopin'.
November 18, 2007
Video on Trial
Call me old fashioned, but I don't think it should be legal to profit from a video of a man being killed. While there was no intent on the part of the videographer to make such a video, nevertheless, that's what it is.
Veiled Women Problem Solved
Say... since Veiled Women!! are causing such a problem for our legislators and media here in Canada, maybe we should only let Muslim men into the country:
Saudi Arabia Joins War on Terror
Haha! Just kidding.
But this article, which you may find fun, was sent to me yesterday:
What's uncanny is that I was thinking the very same thing - honest. You probably were, too, even if you didn't realize it.
Because remember that widely reported campaign involving Laura Bush advising women doctors in Saudi Arabia about breast cancer (because, like, she's American AND her husband is President of the United States - which means that SHE is the First Lady of the United States)?
Yeah, me too.
So, if you're like me (just kidding - no one is like me - unless you're also like a peri-menopausal PeeWeeHerman), you were probably hoping she'd rush back over to advice Saudi Arabia about human rights when this happened: SheWasAskingForIt-LookAtWhatSheWasWearing - NOT just because she's the First Lady of the United States, but because when she killed some guy while driving (it was a long time ago, not like... yesterday or anything) she didn't even get one lash.
That's because she's American, not Saudi Arabian. Of course... if she'd been Saudi Arabian... she wouldn't have killed a guy while driving, I guess.
Well, nevermind all that because the media would, too, and just focus on how she'd be wearing a head covering and then it would get all in a hijab about how VEILED WOMEN!! are scaring the menfolk at the polls and what can we do about it and all three parties agree Muslimism isn't worth the voting block and where are all the Feminists to win the War in Afghanistan and who will stop the IslamoFascists from taking over the world once they've taken over our birthrate and how can we risk democracy in Pakistan when the IslamoFascists are just waiting in the wings to get hold of the nukes we gave it and whatever happened to cut and run from Iraq now that it's costing us trillions of $$$s and maybe Canada should join OPEC so we're on the other good side of the Saudis in case the Americans decide they'd like to develop our tarsands cheaper and faster and is anybody testing those Chinese imported blankets for smallpox but don't worry because MerckFrost has a new vaccine for smallpox that will also protect teenaged girls from hair loss which Canada's New Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper has positively endorsed with a negative advertising campaign of Stephane Dion staring at the camera and blinking while the RCMP has finally proven the effective use of Tasers against Raging Grannies and other Terrorists and don't forget to Support the Troops!
November 17, 2007
Sanctifying Marriage
I was talking the other day with my buddy-in-good-times about the institution of marriage. We were discussing the fact that, really, any two people should be able to get married, since it merely involves making a bunch of promises to each other that any two people can make, when he pointed out that the Church actually has no business involving itself in marriage at all.
It's true, too. Marriage is a surprisingly legal, manmade institution that involves a binding (but not really) contract based on a bunch of airy fairy ooey gooey promises made by one person to another who want their "love" recognized in law. I mean, since there's no way of knowing whether or not anyone of us will keep those promises, it's not even very legal, in my opinion.
But - what the hell does Gawd have to do with it?
Personally, I think marriage should be made illegal - like slavery and witch burnings - because it's simply not reasonable to bind one person to another by means of a contract based on a bunch of promises that may or may not really reflect how each party feels about the other - when there is simply no way for either party to know whether or not they can keep their promises for any length of time, let alone until death do them part.
Acting Weird
In view of what happened to Robert Dziekanski at the Vancouver airport (killed by police using non-lethal tasers) maybe we need Parliament to enact a law against people acting weird in public so that this sort of thing doesn't happen again.
That way, if it does, there will be no question of who's in the wrong.
Canada's "At Least" War
I wonder if the Mission in Afghanistan will be filed in future Canadian history texts under: "Well, at least we didn't invade Iraq"...
November 16, 2007
Annual "It's 'The Christmas', Stupid" Rant - One Day Early
Well, it's November 17th, time for my soon-to-be-annual Christmas rant. Yes, indeed. November 17th. The one day of the year I think we should switch over from simply persecuting Christians, to ranting about Christmas.
Why? Well, because a good Christmas rant gives me the energy I need to devote to persecuting Christians for all of the rest of the year. Consider November 17th my annual Day of Reflection when I allow Christians to go about their annoying business unmolested by the scorn I scream into my pillow at night so I can rail about their Chosen Holiday.
Christmas is special. And by special - I mean retarded. It's hard to imagine a holiday more retarded than Christmas. Adults who like Christmas should be put down. And by put down - I mean euthanized. There is no excuse for an adult liking Christmas. It's akin to an adult liking to roll in a fresh cow pie before sitting down to a supper of jelly beans.
In a jolly jumper.
And the Christmas brigade is getting worse. Because they actually believe that - not only is Christmas NOT retarded - but that it's getting short shrift in the Holiday line-up.
Oh, really. Christmas is getting short shrift to Ramadan, Diwali, Hannakah and my nude Pagan annual backyard run to the salt lick, down to the creek, up through the woods and over to the magic rock to celebrate the long dark nights of winter?
No. Sorry. You are very mistaken. Christmas is a cultural ape. A religious goon. An unavoidable dog's breakfast of tacky kitsch and maudlin religiosity. A melange of grotesque over-indulgence and pious sanctimony.
It's an embarrassment. And a good reason for every other culture in the world to despise us. Gawd, *I* despise us for Christmas. Because it's completely fake. Nothing about Christmas is genuine. It's all nostalgia based on myth. An orgy of old-timey days advertising for plastic products of all shapes and sizes.
MADE IN CHINA!
Gee, talk about the elephant in the living-room. China, a communist country on the fast track to crass materialism with a murderous human rights record coming up smartly on the inside - is Santa Claus. You don't agree? Try doing a Christmas shopping without buying anything made in China. In fact - go one further and try doing a Christmas shopping buying only goods made in Canada. Or even the United States. Europe, if you want to take it overseas to those non-Puritan art snobs.
Good luck. You'll need it. If you have kids - don't even try. Just hold your nose and head to the mall. Give it up. You can't be a decent human being with a social conscience AND a Christmas shopper. It simply isn't possible. Forgive yourself. Christ would if he'd ever had to shop for His birthday. In fact, I think he'd be humiliated beyond belief by all the suffering he's caused for the slave labour over in China. Even if they are heathens.
Anyway, this is the first of two entries about Christmas. This weekend, I promise to offer up one woman's solution to what for many parents has become a living one, almost two, month nightmare. It involves divorce and ex-in-laws and keeping a low profile with the appearance of quiet suffering while secretly smiling to herself and planning grill cheese sandwiches for her sad and lonely Christmas dinner.
Meanwhile - Chrrrrrrrrristmas.
Grrrrrrrrrrrr.
November 15, 2007
Politically Incorrect - Do Not Read!
What if the real reason we don't like Mulroney any more'n we like Paul Martin is because they're Irish?
Like, what if the whole country was hooked up to a lie detector test and asked, "Is the real reason you don't like Mulroney because he's Irish?" And it turns out it's true. Except the next question is, "Are you just saying that because you think Irish means:
"the rest of it, the sinuous mind, the easy passion, the leery eye, the ready smile, the fine, swaggering, billycock-and-shillelagh-walk, the flexible moralities, the bel canto oratory, the black billious angers."(Morris West, Cassidy)
What a bunch of racist pricks we'd be then, eh?
Although, even then, there's still that $300,000 in cash.
The Irony of Greed
I keep reading about Mulroney and the $300,000 as if no wealthy person would be so stupid as to jeopardize EVERYTHING for what to him would be such an insignificant amount of money.
Well, I have two words to say to that, over and over and over: Martha Stewart, Martha Stewart, Martha Stewart...
Waiting for the Apocalypse
This morning as I was in full flight about my Rachel Corrie entry (having received a fair degree of unsolicited feedback on it - and here it is again if you missed it first go 'round: StagingRachelCorrie) rightwingers, Israel, rightwingers and Israel - my brilliant companion offered up this insightful nugget:
Rightwing Christians are to Israel what Ducks Unlimited is to the Wetlands
Nope - sorry, Ladies (and Gents, of course, if you are so inclined). Stand down - he's mine.
Seinfeld on Marriage
When I was home visiting my Mom, Jerry Sienfeld showed up on Regis and Kelly to say this about marriage to men: "You should only get married if you want to make the other person happy", adding as the applause-o-meter settled back down from most-brilliant-insight-ever to say-something-else-brilliant, "Because otherwise, most men really just want to be left alone".
So, listen up, Ladies. Unless he wants nothing more than to make you happy - leave him be.
November 14, 2007
The Agenda and the Cato Institute
Tonight's "Agenda" was about what we need to do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while flogging Jeffrey Simpson's latest book.
Anyway, by the end of the show, the Cato Institute fellow was right where I knew he'd be - denying the science of climate change.
Yup. He went from "it's an insurmountable problem that we can't do anything about" to "it's a problem that doesn't exist".
My, my. If Conservative think tanks were any more predictable we could just leave them off "The Agenda" altogether.
Please.
Staging Rachel Corrie
CBC's News Website has this story on it today:
Now, brushing aside the bizarre editorializing by the author of the piece, what the hell is up with the beside the whole point of art ass covering that seems to be going on by everybody connected to the play.
If I had the resources, I'd make "Rachel Corrie - The Documentary" and show it on every street corner in every city of the world. It's a truly heroic tale of a young idealistic woman who lost her one and only life trying to make the world a better place for others. It doesn't matter if people object to her for political reasons - and people are more than welcome to state their case against her - politically. They're alive, afterall, to do it. She's dead. The problem isn't that there is pressure to mute the telling of her story, the problem is that people who don't have to are caving in to the pressure.
I mean, c'mon. What the hell is art for, anyway? Why bother with the truth? Good Gawd, as long as we are afraid to offend, there will always be people willing to be offended. And who, really, could be offended by the Rachel Corrie story? It's not personal. It's about a young woman who was killed for her beliefs - in cold blood. As far as I'm concerned, that's a story that needs to be told, if only because I think Rachel Corrie herself never thought it would happen.
The fact that that it did is what people should be offended by - not the staging of a play about her daring commitment to a cause so far away in every sense from her safe and secure American life. I mean, so many of us have strong and committed opinions about issues that will never affect us, but Rachel Corrie actually lived and died standing by hers.
Anyway, as far as this armchair radical is concerned, Rachel Corrie's is a remarkable story of courage that should be told and heard by audiences everywhere.
Damn the torpedoes and make 'em howl and whatever other expressions we use these days to make sure the right thing gets done.
I Heart Dion
I was thinking maybe the Liberals should wear "I Heart Dion" tee-shirts during Question Period to show support for their Leader (you know, so they don't look like such a vile bunch of back-stabbing power-hungry pricks).
Except I'm not sure Dion would get the joke.
I dunno. Call it a hunch, but I think he's having a lot of trouble working in a second language.
Ottawa, the City
There's a situation in Ottawa right now that really does define this city, which isn't so much a city as it is a bunch of by-laws and regulations, top heavy with an almost military-style government presence, and a rigid bureaucracy of two solitudes - one bitterly resigned to being resented for its inside track to the best jobs, the other bitterly resigned to the fact that learning a second language in adulthood is now both de riguer and completely pointless.
But back to this Ottawa-defining situation I want to tell you about. (And I've lived in Toronto, so, believe me, when I say "Ottawa-defining", I mean it.)
Recently, more than a month ago now, there was some kind of incident in a building at the corner of Bank and Somerset, which is smack dab in downtown Ottawa, in as much as downtown Ottawa has a smack dab. The details I have are sketchy and hearsay, but from what I understand, the building is an empty heritage building, the owner has been cited for several safety violations regarding work he has been doing on the site (and I don't know if any of that work ever involved the proper permits or not, or if proper permits are even required anymore), and the incident involved a cave in that briefly trapped a handful of workers who were rescued in short order by one of the millions of emergency vehicles and personnel that rushed to the scene as soon as the near tragedy occurred.
Anyway, as a result of this near tragedy (that turned out A-Okay for the workers, so don't worry your pretty little head about them), an entire city block - a fairly major downtown city block - has been cordoned off for at least a month, while buses - very popular main street city buses - have been diverted way off their normal routes, and an around the clock police presence has occupied the scene - an around the clock police presence which involves young bored and pissed off cops sitting for hours in idling police cars (occasionally racing them backwards down Somerset and going up over the curb to almost run over one Sooey-at-large who yelled, "Hey!" before noticing the cop was black and reflexively biting her guilty W.A.S.P. tongue) and other young bored and pissed off cops directing pedestrian traffic in the surliest of manners while clearly hoping that some naive soul, not realizing how Ottawa cops respond to pedestrian backtalk, will say, "WTF?" so that they can pull out their tasers and stun a few citizens to death.
If this was any other city, citizens would rest assured that the situation would not go on much longer, but as it's Ottawa, we who must now live and work AROUND the, I'm sure, "officially cordoned off indefinitely site", know that it will continue as such through the winter, spring, summer - possibly forever - while an investigation (and one can only hope - fervently - that there IS an investigation) is conducted very very slowly because it no doubt involves many many slightly less than legitimate transactions and characters attempting to bulldoze their way past very very legitimate heritage building by-laws and regulations.
Alas, at this point, I no longer care if the building - heritage or not - is torn down, the owner locked up for the rest of his life without trial, and a toxic waste dump run by the Mafia - or Laidlaw, even - put on the site in its stead. Just so long as the buses are allowed to run up Bank Street again as they should. Because it kills me, it truly kills me, that this city which is also the Nation's Capital, shows so little regard for citizens, including tourists, that it has made absolutely no attempt to inform public transit users - WHO PAY FOR THE SERVICE - of the very very inconvenient bus route alterations that have been just one result of this single building incident.
Really. I'm serious. This is what it's like living and working in Ottawa, where we are held hostage by OC Transpo, employer of the rudest, meanest, most uncompromisingly unhelpful bus drivers in the world, and a company that can't even be bothered to put up signs to indicate to unsuspecting public transit users that, not only is the system rude, mean, and uncompromisingly unhelpful, but the buses no longer go where they are supposed to go because of some slightly less than legitimate guy who owns a slightly less than legitimate building somewhere way the hell up the bus route.
Oh - and at least one store is completely shut down because it's beside the bad building that caused all this fuss - the bad building whose owner has had so many safety violations cited against him that, well, one wonders what an investigation will turn up that wasn't already there, if you catch my drift.
Anyway, it's all very typical of Ottawa, the city that isn't really, so, if you have a choice and any sense, I would advise you not to move here.
Also, our Mayor is a complete fucking nut.
November 13, 2007
Border Crossings
To be perfectly honest (for a change) I had always just assumed border guards were armed.
And I can't remember when there wasn't a line-up at the border to get through customs.
I mean, back when we were an ordinary family smuggling cheap goods across the border from Soo, Michigan to Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, we sat up straight and smiled politely at the border guard because we figured, if we didn't, he'd blow our heads off.
Either that, or we'd be pulled over for an inspection. Which, as far as we knew, was the same thing as getting our heads blown off because we had pockets full of cheap candy and motorized toys and were wearing six pairs of brand new underwear - each.
So, let's face it. The only thing that has/will really changed/change at ground level is the possibility of being accidentally shot in the head by a trigger happy border guard because you twitch too much when you lie, "No, officer - we don't have anything to declare".
Okay, It's Time
Why the fuck can't anybody say, "Merry fucking Christmas" anymore, eh?
And why aren't the kids allowed to sing Gawddamned fucking Christmas carols in school anymore?
Jesus fuck! Why the living fuck can't we have a great big fucking Christmas tree in the Gawddamned fucking town square?
A Private Black School?!
Why, what a coinkidink. I was just debating with my companion the prospect of Toronto allowing for an all black school - within the public school system, of course. I was pro (from a WTHell? point of view), he was anti (from a WTFuck? point of view):
"This is the big one...I'm comin' to join ya, honey!"
I know, I know. It's not very... white of me, but I don't care how multicultural we think Canada is. Whiteness, British whiteness, to be exact, is so essentially Canadian, that I simply do not believe, even in our public school system, that the playing field is level - enough.
Black kids need a break from whiteness. They need to be in all black schools being taught by black teachers so they can get out from under that massive smoothering (it's a new word, okay? smoothering) blanket of white culture which dominates every single aspect of Canadian life - still - regardless of what we want to believe Canada has become.
Especially since I would go on to argue that Canada is, if anything, whiter'n ever - in spite of years of non-white immigration.
I may be wrong. But if I am it's because I'm projecting just a little of what it has always felt like to me being a socialist female in a conservative male dominated world.
A white conservative male dominated world.
Say Goodbye to Canada, Schreiber
Okay. It's time for a couple of Sooey predictions.
1) Stephen Harper will not hold a Public Inquiry into Muldoongate. Mulroney is only calling for one because he knows Harper will never do it.
2) Karlheinz Schreiber will be deported to Germany on Wednesday. Out of sight, out of mind.
3) Copying the NDP on a letter he sent to the New Conservative Government of Canada will prove to have been a smart move by Mr. Schreiber: TheScarletLetter
4) Liberal offices will be frantically scouring their mail logs in hopes that they weren't copied on the letter, too. Because THAT would be just too embarrassing to deal with right now.
Hey, IslamoFascists!
How come you don't hate this guy's freedoms?
He may only be the world's 13th-richest man, but Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia will soon be able to claim the bragging rights to the world's largest private jet.Putting an end to months of speculation, Airbus announced Monday that the Saudi billionaire had become the first VIP customer for the A380 superjumbo jet, the winged colossus that the European plane maker lists for just over $300 million. Prince Alwaleed, who currently makes do with a customized Boeing 747-400, signed the contract for his new "flying palace" at a ceremony with senior Airbus executives at the Dubai air show.
I mean, c'mon. He's a lot closer'n America is and he's really flaunting it, if you ask me.
Gawd, this War on Terror makes less sense every time a Saudi Prince buys himself a super jumbo jet, eh?
Hello? Suicide bombers? What gives?
And take a look at this:
Saudi Arabia may be the biggest oil producing nation, but oil is not the main source of Prince Alwaleed's fortune, which Forbes magazine estimates to be $20.3 billion. The prince, 52, controls Kingdom Holding, a vast enterprise with stakes in scores of blue-chip companies, including Citigroup, News Corp. and Walt Disney. The company, based in Riyadh, also owns significant stakes in some of the world's most prestigious hotels, including the George V in Paris and the Savoy in London.
Disney? Good grief. But seriously, he should get into carbon credit emissions trading and venture capital funds now.
That'd be hilariously ironical, don't you think, IslamoFascists?
November 12, 2007
In Solemn Remembrance of Yesterday
Guess who has today off work, Canada?
That's right - your Federal government has its "In Solemn Remembrance of Yesterday" holiday today.
Rick Hillier's New Conservative Remembrance Day
Or is it New Conservative Remembrance Week now? Not that it matters. The American Holiday Season is coming up, the one that stretches Godiness from Thanksgiving to Christmas, so I guess we're just one upping them a bit and taking the Godiness forward from Remembrance Day Week celebrations right through to Easter.
Sheesh - keeping up with Americans in the Patriotism Department is as tedious as it is stupid, eh? If we don't watch it, they're going to have to invade us to get their God and apple pie back.
But if you were having any doubts about feeling like you'd had enough of the whole damn thing (Remembrance Forever AND a Day), read this:
Hillier'sEgoCastsShadowOverWarDead
A smattering of applause snowballed after Rabbi Reuven Bulka, the honorary chaplain for the Dominion Command, urged thousands gathered at Ottawa's National War Memorial to chant "We love our troops."Canada's top soldier couldn't contain a broad grin as the crowd applauded the country's men and women in uniform.
When asked later if he'd ever seen such an outpouring of support, Gen. Rick Hillier replied, "Not in this country, that's for sure."
Hm... "Not in this country, that's for sure."
I dunno about you, but I think that's just about the crassest utterance by a Canadian public figure since... Well, gee... Let's have a contest - shall we? Starting with Rabbi Reuven Bulka urging the Remembrance Day crowd on the Hill to chant "We love our troops".
In the meantime, somebody remind General Hillier who pays his six figure salary, please.
And don't even bother with a reminder of who actually paid for his freedom (not to mention, healthcare, education and, in his case, spiffy new duds, haircuts, meals, lodging, etc etc) and the whole point of Remembrance Day. He's clearly forgotten - along with most of our elected officials.
Oh, and, Lest We Forget - before the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan became a War, WE (and by WE, I mean, Bush Inc) invaded it. I mean, I'm not saying we're Germany to its Poland or anything, but still - a nod to the actual facts would be nice every once in a while.
"Not in this country" indeed.
November 11, 2007
Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid
Uh oh, fellow citizens - I think the War on Terror may have eliminated the buffer zone between Conservative and BatShitCrazy:
When given worse alternatives, there are advantages to military rule -- soldiers do not much care for micromanaging everyday civilian concerns. But also the disadvantage that no one much likes being ruled by soldiers.
Here's what my good friend, Kierkegaard, had to say about Mr. Warren's "analysis" of military rule (No, not THAT Kierkegaard - the OTHER Kierkegaard):
Hmmm. Now, before I read that blog entry, I might have included "disappearances" and "mass executions" on the list of pros and cons for military dictatorships. But I suppose that instituting a state of fear through the constant threat of violence does give citizens a certain amount of surplus autonomy that the liberal nanny state would never afford them.
Personally, I'm starting to tire of the terrifying spectre of Islamofascism taking over the world. It seems to be turning us into really truly awful people totally undeserving of our own democracies:
SumGuyTellsUsToSayGoodbyeToPrivacy
A top intelligence official says it is time people in the United States changed their definition of privacy. Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguards people's private communications and financial information.Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act.
Okay, three comments from Sooey:
1) Privacy never meant anonymity anyway, so clearly we're being set up here in the introduction;
2) Government and businesses do not go together in a democracy - only government and citizens go together in a democracy;
3) How come I'd never heard of Donald Kerr until Congress apparently decided to take a second look at the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act?
That is all on this Remembrance Day 2007.
Oh, one more thing - did you know there's a campaign on to save the Legion? Well, there is. Apparently, as WWII vets slowly but surely shuffle off this mortal coil, the Legion's future looks less bright. So there's a campaign afoot to save it.
Ah, but why and for whom, you ask.
Ours is not to reason why, Dear Reader.
November 09, 2007
Sooeynomics
When rich people buy stuff, they automatically inflate the value of it just by virtue of paying gobs of money for it - even though paying gobs of money for something is no real sacrifice to them at all (mostly because they'll recoup their losses on resale to another rich person, acquire loans based on equity to invest in money making ventures, and so on and so forth and more of the same etc etc until they are richer'n ever).
Conversely, when poor people buy stuff, even when it's a sacrifice for them to do so, given that they have less money to spare, no value is added to the stuff they've just bought and they won't ever recoup any money for it should they need to sell it for cash.
Whatever poor people buy is essentially worthless by virtue of the fact that it was purchased by poor people.
Therefore, poor people should stop buying whatever isn't food, shelter or education and leave it to rich people to buy and sell each other stuff.
I mean, if all our manufacturing jobs are going to disappear anyway and all our goods are going to be made in China, why feed the "financial success is for people who already have money" Canadian system with your non-unionized, low-paying service industry salary?
Screw the rich by not buying stuff.
Looking Down on Other Countries
I've noticed a smug Canadian superiority complex when it comes to some other countries with a tendency towards the violent overthrowing of their governments.
I dunno, but when 40% of Canadians don't vote because they don't see the point or can't be bothered or just don't like any of the options available to them, I wonder if we're not missing out on something better because we won't smash the state and start over.
But seriously, if we go from this Senate to an elected Senate instead of no Senate, it may be time to get out of our armchairs.
Poppy Pooper
I know this is sacrilege, but I'm trying to care less about what people think of me, so here goes:
Who the hell are we wearing poppies for, anyway?
I mean, since we've made a complete mockery of Remembrance Day by participating in Bush Inc.'s War on Terror via Afghanistan, I'm poppy pooping this year.
Yup. I'll be the person walking down the street on Remembrance Day 2007 without a poppy on my coat lapel.
Suck it up, War Dead.
New Conservatives Go Negative Between Elections
What's with the New Conservative Party of Canada's between elections negative advertising, featuring Stephane Dion saying something about it not being easy to prioritize (in his "heavier in the heat of attacks" French accent), over and over - as if it's any different than making fun of someone's facial paralysis due to childhood disease?
Except that they're doing it when there isn't even an election campaign underway.
What a freakin' bunch of creepy losers, eh?
Dudes? You're the actual government right now? Like, with responsibilities for governance and stuff?
Geez Louise.
Dumbassedasswipes.
November 08, 2007
The Internet and the Fall of Civilization
Good grief there's a lot of intellectual wanking over the Internet versus Life As We Used To Know It.
Here's Sooey's take on it for all the handwringers out there: If the Internet was not available to me, I would spend more time talking to myself and going without information I really don't need to feed and clothe myself adequately for an Ottawa winter.
I mean, all it is - is more. It's not anything different in terms of information, it's just more of it. And since I know people both with and without the Internet who live much more informed lives than I do, I don't think it's the Internet that either informs or doesn't inform people.
Think of your bookshelf. Mine, I can tell you, is full of books I've never read and never will read because I also buy cooking magazines and whenever I think, "What'll I make for dinner?" which is surprisingly