« December 2007 |
Main
| February 2008 »
I dunno. Call me a harridan but I think this is a helluva lot more sexist than anything Ann Coulter has ever said.
HenryRollinsStalksAnnCoulter
Well, okay. Maybe not "ever" said. But still. And you knew this was coming, Dear Reader, or you wouldn't be reading SooeySays, but - would a man on the left joke about making a man on the right his bitch?
Because that would actually be funny - to me, anyway. And yet, Henry Rollins didn't pick a man on the right for this little bit o' schtick, did he.
No, Dear Reader, he didn't. But there you go - humour is subjective. And I am a Feminist, so - there you go again.
Well, I've still got my fist raised in a black power salute, Honkies. It's me and The Bruthas on this one.
Smell yer lilly white asses, later!
We Shall Overco-o-ome... We Shall Overco-o-ome... We Shall Overco-o-ome...
What to do about white racists?
I mean, do white racists blame THEIR ethnicity when members of THEIR tribe do bad things?
No, of course not. But is it fair to blame white racists for being what they are? Because, unless you're racist yourself, you have to know that white racists weren't born that way. Racism is learned behaviour. Which means that society, our society, is to blame for white racists.
Oh dear... unless white racism is nature, not nurture, and some little white babies are just festering bundles of hate waiting to happen...
Gawd. That'd be weird. Laying in the nursery feeling all superior, checking off the negative racial stereotypes of the other babies because you were born a white racist? And imagine how awkward it would be for your non-racist, socially progressive, left-leaning parents at an NDP convention when your first word is the N-word...
Okay. Let's not go there and let's just all agree that white racism is a learned behaviour, from parents, family, friends, educators, cults, politicians, churches (oops, I already said cults), co-workers, madmen shouting out racist slogans on street corners...
White racists - how DO they get that way?
Yes, indeed. I believe Mark Steyn has some swampland in Florida he'd like us to buy:
I'llEvenThrowInSomeWMDs
And no, Dear Reader, it's not you - it's an article from the National Post you're smelling:
RCMPPowerlessToStopIslamicMenacer
I mean, c'mon. Are we seriously expected to believe that the RCMP can't do ANYTHING about this very bad seed inciting hatred against Jews and violence against Canadian Armed Forces personnel? Why not? Y'all set your tasers on stun and shot yourselves in the head?
Gimme a fucking break. Canada's Rightwing media is so bullshit central on anything to do with this gawdforsaken War on Terror, that I'm getting so I can smell it coming off the links on its supporters' blogs.
So yeah, maybe check for those missing WMDs under the little prick's bed, RCMP. But if he comes up clean, or if there's really no such person afterall, check where all former CHRC staff, CSIS undercover spies, New Conservative Party of Canada operatives, and assorted other "good guys" were at the times of the postings.
Whatever. Or go taser some blameless citizen at the airport and voila - you've done something.
I notice there has been a lot of finger pointing by the Right at Islamic Extremism as being the cause of so much strife in the Western world, but does that really have any basis in reality, or is it just a failure to acknowledge existing imperfections in our own Western democracies.
For instance, Europe has always been very nationalistic and unwelcoming of immigrants from Africa, etc - France in particular is known for its failure to integrate newcomers by essentially denying them citizenship and voting rights. And now it is having to face down the very real problem of a large and unruly and disenfranchised Muslim population expressing extreme dissatisfaction with its treatment at the hands of French authorities.
9/11 was carried out within the United States by terrorists living under the radar of both the FBI and CIA. Large disaffected groups of immigrants populate ghettoized-by-ethnicity sections of cities in the United States with non-citizens living and working completely outside the established parameters of native born Americans. Arabs in New Jersey, for instance, where supposedly many of the so-called terrorist cells involved in 9/11 operate, live practically autonomously of other non-Arab American citizens.
Here in Canada, Muslims, feeling beseiged by Rightwing commentary are able to lay complaints to Human Rights Commissions that effectively reveal us as having equivocating standards regarding Freedom of Speech (depending on who is doing the complaining) as well as unfair practices regarding which groups out of the whole are subject to ongoing biased commentary in national news publications - at a time when we should have a heightened awareness of bigoted propaganda being used to justify an amorphous beast like the American "War on Terror".
Now really, whose fault is it that Western democracies are facing these problems, and, are the examples above actually posing threats to democracy or are they more likely pointing to very real shortcomings and failures in our collective practice of it?
I dunno, but the word "Scapegoating" comes to mind, doesn't it.
Dear Reader,
I came up with a really good point of comparison between the Federal Liberals and the New Conservative Party of Canada last night as I took the bus home from a computer night course out in the the middle of friggin' nowhere of the outskirts of cold and desolate Ottawa. Fortunately, I had someone sitting right beside me with whom I could share my revelation who could remind me this morning what exactly it was in order that I could blog it for you:
You can trust Federal Liberals not to risk nuclear power plant meltdowns when they are the government because they like governing so much that they would never risk the ensuing fallout such an event would cause - i.e. being booted out of office.
But the New Conservative Government of Canada? Not so much.
Sooey
Excuse me for asking, but, why isn't our government threatening to pull the troops from Afghanistan - NOW - if the government of Afghanistan doesn't free Pervez Kambaksh? I mean, so much for all that macho rhetoric when there's something we can actually do that doesn't involve sending more troops for longer to prop up a government that doesn't seem a whole lot different than the Taliban we're supposedly fighting - EH?:
AghansApproveJournalistDeathSentence,NewConservativesHappy
I mean, I realize how much you dislike journalists, Mr. Prime Minister and all you New Conservatives, but it pretty much disproves your claim that all the soldier deaths in Afghanistan have not been in vain - which they so clearly have been - when the government we're helping keep in power is just as bad as the extremists we're trying to prevent from seizing it.
At a bare minimum, maybe the "Good guys/Bad guys" talk could at least go the way of the Dodo Bird and we should just assume everybody who isn't us is Bad and proceed accordingly.
And always remember, no wait, never forget - your first allegiance is to the Canadians who are funding all of this peace/war making. And don't forget either that old saw - the truth shall make you free. I can't speak for all Canadians, but I'd sure appreciate it if you'd can the b.s. and deliver the straight goods on what our real point is in staying the course in Afghanistan - since it can't possibly be to prop up the current government.
Trust us - we can handle the truth. It might mean you get turfed at the first available opportunity, but so be it. Sometimes the truth hurts.
Oh say, Dear Reader, I was just thinking - maybe when Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant are each finished defending their right of Free Speech to the Kangaroo Courts here (formerly known as Canadian Human Rights Commissions) they can start up a campaign to do the same for Journalists in Afghanistan. You know, so their hyper bigtime absolute uncompromising support for the War on Terror won't be totally in vain, either, and they'll finally have a REAL raison d'etre.
Pay attention, Dear Reader. As the "We're the Good Guys of Canada saving the Women of Afghanistan from the Bad Guys in the Taliban" rhetoric on Afghanistan intensifies, remember that these are the same Bullshitters who don't speak up for women's rights here in Canada, who put their Christian God before the women of Canada, who support discrimination against women through allegiances to their various Churches, who deny women personhood equal to men.
Actually, if you're a Canadian Feminist, you might even say - they are the enemy.
Okay. We all know Britney Spears isn't going to win Mother of the Year, but is it fair that she's taking the public beating she is?
Well, yes. Because when you bring children into this world, you DO have a responsibility to give parenting your best shot.
Does the onus to do this necessarily fall on the mother?
Well, yes again. But only in the case where the father is Kevin Federline.
Oh my. I think I'm in love. There's one "Twiss Butler" posting comments over at Broadsides - check out the Abortion thread and the Porn thread - and, man oh man, does s/he cut through the bull to get to the shit.
What happened to Feminists that we became afraid to say, flat out to politicians during election campaigns, "Put up or shut up. You either believe in reproductive freedom for women or you don't. And if you believe in it - say so. Then make sure that women everywhere in Canada have access to publicly funded abortion services and tell the people who want to enslave women to the State to go fuck themselves."
I mean, c'mon. Where the hell was the Prime Minister yesterday on the 20th anniversary of the most important decision to affect the freedom of women in this country since we got the right to vote? Why are we allowing our politicians to play this card at all, that the reproductive freedom of women isn't something of which they should be unequivocally supportive?
Enough already. Like Twiss Butler says, why the hell are we constantly having to fight the good fight? Why is it that all our Prime Ministers and Premiers can turn a blind eye to the very real erosion of our hard won fight - 20 YEARS AGO!!! - to have abortion removed from the Criminal Code.
Abortion is a medical procedure. All women everywhere in Canada MUST have access to publicly funded abortion services - without interference from the many people and politicians who would enslave us as birth vessels for the State - NOW!
Those fucking Prime Ministers and gawddamned Premiers of ours are cowardly shits who are NOT according women rights equal to men.
Furthermore, why is it okay that our Prime Ministers and Premiers belong to religions that openly and actively discriminate against women and homosexuals? Why is it okay that their governments fund religious education that teaches against reproductive freedom for women and actively admonishes against same sex marriage? Why is it acceptable that women who need abortions can't go to a hospital in their town and get one?
Because what's wrong isn't me, Dear Reader - it's them. The people who believe discrimination is still okay, that women aren't people equal to men, that the state and religion shouldn't be so completely separate that I shouldn't have to give a rat's ass what some Imam or Priest or Rabbi thinks - they are what's wrong. And what is going on in our society today - as it has been since forever - is unconscionably undemocratic because I DO have to care what those pricks with their completely undemocratic and authoritarian/totalitarian agendas think because they have influence with our politicians Feminists could only DREAM of having.
We know better than this.
Why do religious leaders, unelected chauvinist pigs, have any say on anything that will affect my life?
Why do we still elect politicians whose first allegiance is to patriarchal institutions instead of to half the population of the country?
Where women's rights come first - EVERYBODY'S rights come first. That's the message we should be taking to the streets until the people elected to govern our country are people worthy of the honour.
Thanks, Twiss Butler. You reminded me of the importance of not giving a shit what anybody thinks - put Feminism first and the rest will follow.
Raging against the machine.
A Disney cartoon live and unplugged.
Acting like a wild thing.
Keepin' it real, hot child in the city.
I mean, really. What does a girl have to do these days to get due cred as a performance artist non pareil.
Nevermind what thousands of bloggers will have to say on the 20th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that struck down Criminal Code restrictions on abortion - what will Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his New Conservative Government of Canada have to say to the majority of Canadians celebrating it?
I will be very excited to hear, not just congratulations to the women of Canada for having achieved this important milestone, 20 years ago, in their fight for reproductive rights for all Canadian women, but I will be even more excited to hear how he and his government plan to expand on the right of equal access to publicly funded abortion services for all women in all provinces across this great and democratic country of ours.
Reproductive Freedom - it's a good thing, Mr. Prime Minister.
Call me anti-human but I think a declining birthrate is a good thing. I'm a people person, too. I put people first, I really do. They come before all other concerns (environmental, political, financial, the unborn, the war dead, etc).
So, if we're making up for our declining birthrate by dragging people from other countries over here against their will, I'm really not for it. BUT if we have people wanting to come here to live in our free and democratic society - I'm all for it. EVEN though I'm at one with our declining birthrate.
But, what if the people who want to come here are racists? Like say, skinheads from Eastern Europe, or genocidal Australians, or South African apartheid supporters?
Or just rich developers from everywhere who will spread urban sprawl and exploit our natural resources and destroy Canada's environment because there's more urban to be sprawled here, more natural resources to exploit, and more Canadian environment to destroy than there is back in the old country - which is pretty much a mess because of rich developers?
Because I really think we need an immigration policy that reflects my concerns as a Canadian citizen that the above type people not be welcomed with open arms.
At the very least.
Say, can you support the right to Freedom of Speech AND the right to sue for libel?
Why yes, yes you can, Dear Reader, whether you're on the Right, the Left, or just a thoughtful politically engaged Canadian with no axe to grind or ox to gore, or even if you're a thoughtless NON politically engaged Canadian WITH an axe to grind and an ox to gore.
The two concepts are not at all exclusive. On the one hand, you can believe that all Canadians have the right to think what they think and say what they say. On the other hand, you can believe that any Canadian who is libelled by what someone else has said - has a right to sue that person for damages.
Character assassination is a terrible thing if you've ever experienced it because it directly affects your life, reputation, and livelihood. That's why libel is considered criminal, and not just something to complain about to the CHRC.
And there's a reason why the original intent behind CHRCs had little to do with the censorship of speech (as in, politically offensive speech - the current preoccupation of CHRCs) and a lot to do with ACTUAL discrimination against Canadians who could not otherwise afford to seek redress.
And libel can certainly lead to ACTUAL discrimination - but Canadian courts will (rightly or wrongly) consider from how high a height one has been libelled in assessing damages. Meaning, of course, that most libel is NOT worth pursuing in a court of law if one is of sound mind and has more important things to do - like make dinner, walk the dog, read the book for book club, etc.
But, as they say, the road to hell, etc etc, and there seems to be a lot of road paving going on at our CHRCs these days.
Okay, Dear Readers, for those of you who may not have the time to read it, here is Sooey's analysis of John Manley's Report on Afghanistan (I don't need to read it to know what it is, having worked in politics for several years before choosing to have children of my own and become a full-time homemaker - wiping bums for free, as it were):
It's just another senior Liberal Party insider's (and failed one-or-two-time leadership contender's) political screwover of Stephane Dion.
It's true. Analyse no further, Dear Reader, because most senior Liberals these days would rather Harper than Dion since Harper is much better for their own political fortunes than is Dion. It's the same deal with Ontario provincial Liberals, the formula breaking down simply as follows:
Harper = McGuinty (provincially).
Harper = Another kick at the Liberal leadership can (federally).
So yeah, Manley's just making his next leadership bid with this report. Not to worry. Although Dion might want to think about removing a knife or two from his back before the next campaign gets underway - just to lighten the load a bit before he's scrapheaped by his own Party.
I read an article today on Bourque about Funeral Directors in Quebec essentially calling for more government money to help them buy, er, bury poor people.
After they're dead, of course:
LetUsRememberThemAsTheyWeren't-We'llBeRicherForIt
Anyway, it struck me that this latest manipulation of public sentiment to garner public funding is pretty crass.
Mostly because, on first reading, I fell for the notion that Funeral Directors would actually give a rat's ass about poor people, before going through it again and recognizing that infamous Catholic tendency to pay down guilt debts with cash and then get back to business.
Unless that IS their business, in which case they're already there, aren't they.
And I assume these guys are all Catholic. I could be wrong, I suppose, but I'll take that risk, Dear Reader.
Sure, more expensive publicly funded funerals would make life easier - for the living - but I don't see how they would do much for the dead. And call me a heretic, but I can see, quite clearly, that there would be no end in sight to the guilt debt Funeral Directors could collect from the public for burying poor people in a style to which Funeral Directors in Quebec have become accustomed to burying wealthy Catholics but which has nothing to do with how these poor people lived - or how they died.
Which was poor.
And isn't the promise of Catholicism that riches await the poor in heaven?
So, isn't a plan to use public funding to bury poor people in style going to deny them their just reward in heaven? I mean, sure, it's better for Funeral Directors if the poor have more expensive burials, but won't that fuck with their status in heaven where they've been promised a reversal of fortune?
Anyway, I'd be interested to hear The Vatican's position on this because wherever there's money to be made, The Vatican usually has a position. And usually the position is that no expense be spared to pay down that guilt debt. Unless the guilty are priests, of course. Then the guilt debt is absorbed by the poor so their riches will grow in heaven - exponentially. (Interesting, and this is almost off topic, but you never hear from rich people who were sexually abused by priests, do you?)
So yeah, I understand the living wanting to make money off the dead - what else are the dead good for? we might ask ourselves - or Funeral Directors, I guess. I just don't think it's right to turn the whole "the meek shall inherit the Earth" concept on its head once poor people are dead and can't say, "Hey - as in life so it is in death, you rich fuckers! Now throw me in a hole in the ground so I can go to my Great Reward in Heaven!"
And, you know, it's not all about money. Maybe the dead poor had rich inner lives and don't need any after death compensation. Maybe there's no need to use public funds to pay for better funerals for poor people in order to ease a guilt debt we might not even owe. Didja ever think of that, Funeral Directors? Eh? Well? Didja? Hunh?
Whenever a well connected establishment guy describes someone as "brave" I generally assume that by "brave" they mean "another well connected establishment guy" and I don't pay any more attention to whatever point it is that they're REALLY flogging.
Let's face it. Charlize Theron, an actress, was routinely described by fellow industry insiders as "brave" for having played an unattractive serial killer in a movie. Now, maybe if Aileen Wuornos had been directing her in the movie, instead of decomposing underground due to a government administered lethal injection, and Charlize Theron shouted out repeatedly to the make-up department "I need more uglying up here!" - THAT would have been brave, but I can't see that there was anything ACTUALLY "brave" about Charlize Theron playing Aileen Wuornos in a movie.
Ted Danson might be described as "brave" for having played a paedophile in the made-for-television movie "Something About Amelia" because that kind of role for a man can be as much of a career stopper as being fat or ugly can be for an actress, but that's pretty much it in the acting world for what I'd term as "brave".
And it's not like Ted Danson didn't get paid to play a paedophile in "Something About Amelia". I mean, c'mon - you're either "brave" or you're getting paid - you can't really lay claim to both, I don't think, or we'll need a whole new category of brave for people who do brave things because they're brave, as opposed to just earning a paycheque.
Anyway, my point is, I always pay attention to who is doing the beknighting when there is beknighting afoot because usually, it's just one well connected establishment guy telling us that another well connected establishment guy is brave because, well, he's another well connected establishment guy who's done/doing something the other well connected establishment guy likes because it's something THAT well connected establishment guy gets paid to do - too.
Money makes the bravery go 'round for well connected establishment guys, Dear Reader.
By the way, being a well connected establishment guy who is considered "brave" by other well connected establishment guys is the absolute limit for well connected establishment guys. It tops packing a big wallet or having a trophy bride, even. It's pretty gay. And no, I'm not saying it's pretty gay, as in - "Wow, is that ever gay!" I'm saying it's pretty gay as in one well connected establishment guy saying to another BRAVE well connected establishment guy, "If I wasn't so terrified of coming out of the closet I'd have sex with you!"
So what IS brave, then, Sooey? Well, thanks for asking, Dear Reader, because this subject came up just the other day when a co-worker and I were discussing this very topic and he said, "Hm. If a well connected establishment guy held a media conference to announce, 'I'm a paedophile and I just want everyone to know that even though I know it's wrong it doesn't make me any less of a paedophile because I still want to have sex with children', I'd think that was pretty brave."
And he's right, I think, in citing that example (there are others, of course, Dear Reader - I just picked that one for the icky quotient). Because unless you're risking something, like your life or reputation or livelihood, for some good purpose (in the case above, the good purpose would be to say to society, "Paedophiles can be anybody - even well connected establishment guys like me - and we didn't ask to be born this way, we just are this way") then you're not really "brave". You're just playing to your fan club.
I guess Politically Correct is pretty much a white term, isn't it. Funny how we assume everything is up to us to the point where, not only do we set up the situation that we decide needs political correcting, but then a bunch of us decide we need a politically incorrect reaction to the political correcting of it.
If even. I mean, it's not like political correctness ever made any difference to people actually living in politically incorrect situations - who didn't already have access to the wealth, money and power that cures political incorrectness.
Anyway, I was thinking yesterday about the television show, "Politically Incorrect", hosted by Bill Maher, that was supposedly a politically incorrect reaction to the supposed political correctness of the 90s, and remembering how, the one time he actually was politically incorrect and took on the White Power Establishment, his show, "Politically Incorrect", was cancelled.
That really says it all about our politically correct reality, doesn't it.
Or, at least, it should.
Speaking of dogmatic, this would have gone against my politically correct grain several years ago, but having had kids and been involved in the education system as a volunteer, what the hell - it looks like I'm down with segregation.
The voluntary part being the update to 2008, of course:
BlackAtSchool
I don't care what other white people say, everybody who isn't us lives under a smothering blanket of white culture and if black kids are going to benefit by going to all black schools (and they will, fellow whitey - they will - because we aren't nearly as politically correct as we like to think we are) then that's a good thing.
I had this great idea last night but, because I don't know how to patent stuff, I'm just going to put it out there so at least when it shows up in the mainstream media in someone's column, I'll get credit for it: Plaid Contact Lenses.
That's right. You heard it here first on SooeySays: Plaid Contact Lenses.
I always get a kick out of Rightwing Pundits and their supporters who lay claim to having been fanatical adherents of all things Left in their youth, but then they saw the Light, and became fanatical adherents of all things Right - as if this lends them credibility instead of just indicating they are probably suffering from early onset Alzheimers, or perhaps simply that they've gone stupid.
They all do it, too, some later than others - witness Christopher Hitchens veering wildly to the Right because something bad happened or Barbara Amiel switching her allegiance from men on the Left to men on the Right because George Jonas happened - but it's a common denominator amongst them all, it seems, to hold up their conversion from Left to Right as some sort of Revelatory sign, as opposed to, well, early onset Alzheimers. Or, perhaps, drinking induced dementia. Or, like I say, simply that they've gone stupid.
Let's face it, other than revealing them to be quite mad, I'm not sure what their point is. And their insistence that the Left has a diabolical plan in the works to take over the world is really quite laughable to anybody who has ever attended a unit meeting of their local union. I wish we had such a plan. Cripes, I've been at unit meetings so democratic and inclusive and not even remotely preparing to take over the world that it's taken until midnight to get through the minutes of the last unit meeting.
Trust me, if the Left ever takes over the world, it's a sure sign that the end is nigh - because the sun will be near to dying out.
So what does drive the Left, you may find yourself asking, Dear Reader. Well, it's quite simple, really. Far from having a diabolical plan to take over the world, the Left is in chronic "sounding the alarm" mode about the fact that the Right already has taken over the world and pretty much all we can do now, is prevent the further erosion of our individual civil liberties in favour of the insatiable greed of monolithic corporations, by electing governments that are, at the very least, not in bed with them, colluding with them, allowing them to fuck us over again and again and again until we no longer even have political infrastructure to react when they change "House of Commons" to "GloboMart".
That's what drives the Left, Dear Reader.
Meanwhile, a whole lot of crazy is what drives Rightwing Pundits.
That concludes today's Sooey lecture on Left/Right Political Science 101.
If the men of the West care so much about women's rights in Afghanistan, why was the puppet installed by Bush Inc. as President of Afghanistan a man, Hamid Karzai, instead of one of the very brave women of Afghanistan who have been fighting for women's rights in Afghanistan for years?
The fact is, the only thing that has changed about Big Boys and their War Toys is the propaganda - as in, it's more politically correct and therefore more misleading than ever. A Feminist woman President of Afghanistan would have done more to rally the troops both here and there than any kind of military/humanitarian intervention could ever hope to achieve.
Of course, those same men of the West who pretend to care so much about women's rights in Afghanistan can't conceive of a Feminist woman President or Prime Minister here in the West, so it's folly to think they could conceive of such a thing in Afghanistan - isn't it.
It's all bullshit, Dear Reader - Bullllllllllllshit wrapped up and presented to Canadians with a big old yellow ribbon.
I dunno but maybe the best thing the winner of a Liberal leadership campaign can do is off all the losers before they can turncoat to the New Conservative Party.
I mean, at least everybody who takes a run at the leadership doesn't win, but still, if I was a Liberal (full disclosure - I detest the scumsuckingbottomfeedingpowergraspers, but I kind of like the cut of Stephane Dion's jib) - I'd really wonder about the runners up being allowed access to inside information.
Except for the girl Liberals. They all seem to be good ol' Liberals on the Left. Why they don't defect to the NDP is beyond me, but there you go. Certainly the NDP has its sexist old guard, too, who would never elect a wom....hey... Nevermind. I keep forgetting about the greatest Prime Minister who never was - Oddry McGlocklin.
It's Canadians who won't elect a woman, I guess - not NDPers. Which is why the Liberals won't ever elect one, either, I suppose.
But back to the man of the hour on Afghanistan. Look, John Manley, it's okay, I guess - but you're a New Conservative. Your report is a preconceived "Do Not Fail Us" propaganda pamphlet to stay the course in Afghanistan - not because it's the right thing to do, but because it's the Rightwing thing to do and will hold you in good stead with Stephen "John, I am your father" Harper.
See, I'm not a REAL military strategist, but even I know we either commit to Afghanistan pretty much forever - or get out now. That's just the way it rolls with Afghanistan and I'm not just saying that because of historical reality. I'm saying that because unless we do that thing Ann Coulter said, "Invade their countries, kill their leaders, and CONVERT THEM TO CHRISTIANITY" (you know, to feel like we've made a REAL difference and not just invaded their country and killed their leaders) - we may as well give up and come home to JudeoChristianworld.
Or, and here is my suggestion (which just came to me in a flash one night when I was blogging about Stephen Harper and his New Conservative government essentially stacking the judiciary with Pro-Lifers so that women here will eventually find that, although abortion isn't exactly illegal, it won't be accessible, either) - bring all the womenfolk we think we're saving from the Taliban - to Canada.
Because I know guys like you THINK you're the best thing that ever happened to women, but really, you're not. I'm sorry but, you're just not. And I hate to burst your bubble, but if Feminists here could trade all you New Conservatives and New Conservatives in Liberal clothing with the women of Afghanistan - we would.
Win/win, as far as we're concerned.
Now take your report and add it to your resume and stop pretending not to be a scumsuckingbottomfeedingpowergrasper.
I am sooooo sick of Army groupies falling for their own Rightwing propaganda and whining that Canadian Feminists don't care about women's rights in Afghanistan. Well, guess what, Boobii? Canadian Feminists were undercover and reporting on the Taliban in Afghanistan looooong before the War on Terror was a twinkle in Bush Inc.'s eye.
Nevermind:
TSE Bounces Back
The Toronto stock market staged a dramatic rebound in morning trading Tuesday as investors waded back into the market following a big five-day tumble.
Why do I snatch at every little bit of financial news when I have no idea what it means anyway and no investments to speak of in any case?
Just for the record, every single bit of advice I have ever received from a bank employee has been the same: Invest in a balanced mutual fund.
And while we're talking about bank ethics, since when didn't you have to jump through a million and one hoops to get a mortgage?
It'll be interesting to see how big the banking bonuses and profits are this year for the Big Kahunas. Compared to the hit ordinary investors who took the advice of their banks and invested in balanced mutual funds will take, I mean.
Maybe as a public service to taxpayers, governments could remind us every once in a while of what scumsuckingbottomfeeders banks actually are and to steer clear of them and their advice.
Personally, I'd trace the libel back a lot further'n this, but what do I know - I'm not a lawyer dicking around on the Internet all day:
FiveFeetOfBackTrack
Fortunately, the menfolk the womenfolk have been busily libelling others to defend have deep pockets and will certainly rise to the occasion to pay any legal fees encountered by the womenfolk - who don't have nearly the power or resources as the menfolk they were seeking to defend - you know, by libelling a lawyer...
Although frankly, my money is on the menfolk asking their office assistants to handle any and all inquiries for assistance because "We're in a meeting and cannot be disturbed"...
Say, ya wanna save the unborn? Go to China and campaign for reproductive choice for women there. Campaigning to take away reproductive choice from women here won't save nearly as many unborn.
Suppose someone from the CHRC posted offensive speech bait on a white supremacist site and then nailed whoever snatched at it with an offensive speech complaint to the CHRC.
Or suppose someone from the CHRC DIDN'T post offensive speech bait on a white supremacist site and nailed a poster with an offensive speech complaint, ANYWAY - you know, because it was a white supremacist site and most of the posts were offensive and so he just picked a bunch attributable to a single poster and complained to the CHRC about her.
Okay. Now suppose some Internetters STILL thought a CHRC guy, or former CHRC guy, even, actually DID do the (for lack of a better term) "entrapment" thingy and they (and they'd been building up a really big head of steam about this guy ALREADY because they HATED the CHRC) got madder'n ever and posted a bunch of libellous stuff about him - BECAUSE, as I say, it turns out he DIDN'T actually do the "entrapment" thingy.
BUT, going a little further up and in, what if the same guy who DIDN'T do the "entrapment" thingy is the same guy who put it out there on the Internet that he DID do the "entrapment" thingy - THEREBY "entrapping" this whole group of Internetters who hate him A LOT and who have been sort of, kind a, pretty much, libelling him ANYWAY, into libelling him ABSOLUTELY, so that he could then skip the CHRC complaint process altogether and take this BIG group of bait snatchers to court for LIBEL instead of bothering with NOT baiting, but merely PRETENDING to bait, white supremacists on white supremacist sites that he would then make complaints against to the CHRC.
Wouldn't THAT just be the craziest? Or just desserts? Or a can of worms? Or SOMETHING?
No. That's not a Freudian Slip. Have you ever noticed, Dear Reader, that the men in CS all seem like they're the only ones who don't know that everybody else knows they're gay? While the women in CS all seem like, well, lesbians? Or, at least, women with husky voices?
Well, I have. Heheh - it's like a whole church of priests and nuns.
I saw something on the BBC news tonight about coffee and pregnancy. Apparently a new study reveals what an old study revealed at least 20 years ago.
So, does this mean we're in a scientific study loop? Or does news just take that long to get across the pond?
By the way, just for the Internet record and to all you newbies out there in posterland, if you are on the Left and speak out against the foreign policies of a particular government on the Right, the Right will label you as "anti" that whole country - even though that's pretty retarded, since the government of that country could change, at which point they'd have to label THEMSELVES as "anti" that whole country.
Meanwhile, if you're on the Right, speaking out against an entire group of visibly identifiable people because you don't approve of the actions of a few, some, even several individuals visibly identifiable as belonging to that group, the Left will label you as "anti" that entire group of people - which is not at all retarded because you ARE "anti" that entire group of people - or so you keep insisting, anyway.
Yeah. I know. In real life it's called "racism".
I can't wait for Pro-Choice Blogging Day (January 28th, 2008) so I'm doing my entry now.
I realized something about the abortion debate today (in a strictly legal sense) that I think gets to the crux of the matter for Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers alike. (I use Pro-Life as opposed to Anti-Choice because, even though Anti-Choice is more accurate than Pro-Life, Pro-Life is the going term.)
Here it is: Pro-Life political activists do not recognize intent as relevant to the matter of reproductive rights for women. Which means that their logic runs entirely counter to the spirit of the law. Intent matters in our justice system. A lot. Some might argue it's the essential tenet of it.
But to Pro-Lifers, women who have no intent to conceive are as liable for conception as women who do. And liability is the correct term to use in the matter of conception because for women who have no intent to conceive, conception is a liability. Unless it isn't. In which case a woman is quite free to choose to carry on with the pregnancy.
But Pro-Lifers want a State that can demand a woman who had no intent to conceive carry the pregnancy to term - such that she is, in fact, a de facto birth vessel for the State with no rights over her own person simply (or not so simply) because a sperm fertilized one of her ovules.
That, Dear Reader, is not how our society, our legal system, or any Democracy worth its salt, operates.
I was on the Internet for much of the day, following the freedom of speech, fair comment debate that is going on hither and yon. In the evening, I watched "Lives of Others" a movie about life in East Germany before the Wall came down. (Thankfully, there's no reference to Reagan in it - I've grown so used to pundits on the right giving credit to Ronald Reagan for the fall of Communism in the Soviet Union that it was a pleasant surprise to see that big honking bulltoid not in the movie.)
Now, I'm not the biggest defender of free speech by any stretch. In fact, the only trouble I've ever had censoring the posts of others on my forum is that I have a hard time being thought of by the deleted as a censor. Nevertheless, I'm sure I fall into a medium-lite category on the Internet for what I tolerate on my forum now and what I tolerated on my blog in the days when I took comments.
And the reason I don't take comments now is because I prefer writing what I want to without concern as to what others might think about it. I like to just put it out there and move on, I no longer care whether people agree or disagree with my opinion.
It's been very freeing, Dear Reader - very freeing.
Very political speech makes me nervous, to be honest. The reaction to it makes me even more nervous. I have a lot to lose and like anybody with a lot to lose, I feel vulnerable when people post radical political views on my forum, although, ironically, I don't feel vulnerable when I post my own on my blog. That's because I don't wait around for a reaction anymore. And believe me, people lurve to react on the Internet. It's like one big cyber knee jerk some days.
It's a control thing, as they say. If I only post my opinion and don't have to worry about the reaction to it, it cuts down on worry about the reaction to the reaction and so on and so forth and more of the same etc etc until you find yourself up at 3:00 a.m. worrying about how the net nannies are reacting to a comment by a poster who may, in fact, BE one of the net nannies.
Meanwhile, the other week on my forum, one of my forum regulars, a shitdisturbing guy who writes brilliantly and holds fairly radical political views (to the Left of my own) posted a thread titled "I Do Not Support the Troops". Now, that's a very contentious post to make these days, but it's also a critical post to be able to make. There's no reason why someone who disagrees with the War in Afghanistan shouldn't post such a view. Yet, it made me nervous. I know my forum is "followed" just as I know my blog is "followed" and although his opinion may not be mine (or may be mine but may also be something I wouldn't post, myself) I'm the one who is allowing it. That alone is enough to imply agreement to the net nannies - who are often lawyers and who know the laws of our fair land like they know the look of their right hand wrapped around a staff of righteousness.
So yeah, quite frankly, I'd edit "I Don't Support the Troops" but I won't let myself. I make it a point not to get too paranoid about free speech limiters. But, believe me, I find it hard. Particularly these days.
But the above is all just about deleting posts I worry go too far (and I've got a fairly wide comfort zone) and not allowing comments on my blog because I have a hard time deciding what's fair comment and what could cause me trouble. I'm just not that political, actually. And I don't want any trouble. Really. I know it's hard to believe, but I don't want any trouble. I just want to write what I think in this wide open forum for political views and let it all be.
Still, Dear Reader, there are people out there (and this is the frightening part to me - given what we know about very recent history) who want IPs posted, names named, people charged and fined - for posting their opinions on political forums and blogs. Opinions that these people deem offensive, that may very well be offensive - and to a majority of us - that they don't just want deleted, but that they want to punish the opinion holder for having and the blog/forum owner for allowing.
And they think they're on the side of all that is right and good. They are absolutely dead sure of this. None of these people have any doubt about their crusade. None. That's what's so damnable about this whole freedom of speech and fair comment debate. The people whose political opinions offend me - greatly - are not the people who scare the shit out of me.
So yeah, Dear Reader, if you feel surrounded, it's because you are.
Why not? I mean, who's kidding who? Test a nuke on Gaza and blame it on Hamas. It's a win/win. Plus, there'll be a way better chance of having peace in the Middle East and a legacy for George W. Bush. Another win/win.
I guess by now every Internetter has noticed the Xtreme level of discourse taking place concerning Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant Vs Richard Warman and the CHRCs (the pluralization just means Canadian and the various provincial HRCs - curse these times of post-Federalism devolution of power to the provinces). It's hilarious to me that the amping up of anti-Muslim rhetoric is occuring now when the complaints being discussed are essentially ones involving anti-Muslim rhetoric.
NOT that the puffed up drama queens on the other side (Warman, CHRCs - and I'm not NOT predisposed to either, but we do have legally recognized hate speech and libel laws in this country, ALREADY) have any place in a democratic society, EITHER. I'm just noting how the guilty (and certainly, Steyn and Levant are guilty of anti-Muslim rhetoric - were it any other people other than Muslims they're going on about in the mainstream media they'd have been reduced to shouting on street corners until Richard Warman leapt out from behind the bushes where he'd been feeding them lines to make a citizen's arrest) and their supporters have stepped it up on the Internet as if proving that Muslims are The Bad Seed vindicates the accused.
It is to laugh, really, that these people are employed by the mainstream media. But there you go - this is Canada where the Global Village meets the Village Idiots of Punditry every day in the news.
Still, speaking personally, I'm happy to stay below the radar of Caped Crusaders because I believe it's their bionic vision and super strength of character what make them invulnerable to shades of grey and the vagaries of Democracy.
Mere mortals beware of Caped Crusades left and right is my motto.
The other day I was watching the news and I saw some Greenpeace activists boarding a Japanese whaling ship and it struck me how deliberately and narrowly our government and media define heroism and bravery. Because I don't care who you are or where you live - being an actual hands on activist of any kind these days is brave.
Going up against the Establishment, any Establishment, takes real guts.
So come on, young people. Forget the army and all the officially sanctioned routes and go for the real deal in brave heroics and become a political activist. You won't get any kudos from government or media, but you'll be the real deal in terms of brave and unsung heroes.
And cut the crap, shall we?
I'm a Pro-Choice Feminist on the Left Left Left and I support Mark Steyn and his Rightwing Brethren in the War on Freedom of Speech opposite the Canadian Human Rights Commission. So do lots of people on the Left - including Alan Borovoy of Canadian civil liberties fame and the original CHRC go to guy.
But make no mistake, Mark Steyn and his kind are NOT freedom fighters. Far from it. You simply cannot believe in human rights and even the most basic of freedoms for all people if you don't support a female person's inalienable right over her own body.
The very people whose Freedom of Speech I support, believe that it is the right of the State to deny a woman a legal abortion - that the State right to control her reproduction supercedes her right to control it.
You are either Pro-Choice, or you aren't. And Mr. Steyn is not.
So who really believes in Freedom and who just believes in his own Freedom? That's Right. Case closed.
Yay! Pizza and beer for EVERYBODY!
$800Bushrebates,AmericansForgetWarOnTerror
Damn. He's smarter'n he looks. Quit copying Mike Harris, Mr. President!
Either Pakistan is a haven for Terrorists or it's an ally of the West in the War on Terror. And since it looks like Pakistan is a haven for Terrorists, why doesn't the West invade Pakistan?
And isn't it funny that both Pakistan (a haven for Terrorists AND Bush Inc. ally) AND the New Conservative Government of Canada (Phew - not on a list of countries that harbour terrorists AND Bush Inc. ally, too) would immediately jump all over Stephane Dion's suggestion that diplomatic efforts be made to stem the flow of terrorists from Pakistan to Afghanistan:
PakistanEnvoy&JasonKenneyAgreeToDoNothingReTerroristsInPakistan
"We are dismayed at the statement of NATO intervention in Pakistan," High Commissioner Musa Javed Chohan said in an interview.
Calgary Conservative MP Jason Kenney called Mr. Dion's statement reckless.
I mean, I would think they'd both agree with Stephane Dion that there should be NATO intervention in Pakistan. Afterall, the C.I.A. now says the assassination of Benazir Bhutto was by Al Queda Terrorists. That means Pakistan is pretty much a haven for Terrorists and not even remotely capable of preventing them from crossing the border to Afghanistan to kill NATO forces.
Cripes, Pakistan can't even prevent Al Queda Terrorists from assassinating its own political leaders - well, when they stand in opposition the Government of Pakistan, anyway.
Speaking of standing, Musharraf pretty much admitted the same when he said Benazir Bhutto died because she stood up to greet supporters. I mean, if you can't stand up to greet supporters without being assassinated by Terrorists, I'd say your country has a problem with Terrorists operating freely and to great effect within your country.
C.I.A.SaysPakistanHavenForTerrorists
"You've got this nexus now that probably was always there in latency but is now active: a nexus between al-Qaeda and various extremist and separatist groups," Mr Hayden said.
I dunno, but it seems to me that the Opposition Leader is well ahead of the New Conservative Government of Canada's curve on this one and Jason Kenney should just STFU.
P.S. Is it me? Or was declaring itself an ally of the United States of America immediately after 9/11and pledging support it never actually delivered the smartest diplomatic move ever by a government in our lifetime? Yup. That Pakistan sure knows how to play the West, eh? Cripes, I guess we even gave it nuclear weapons we felt so humanitarian towards it.
Say, I guess some countries CAN have it both ways, afterall. Well, nevermind then.
I just saw this comment by one RedTory over on CanadianCynic's Blog and it so confirms what a brilliant genius I am that I have to post it because I think RedTory is a brilliant genius and yet I had this very same thought when the whole New Conservatives Vs Old Liberals nuclear industry safety crisis and resultant firing of Linda Keen for purely partisan reasons isotope crisis erupted:
As I've mentioned previously, I was getting CT-scans at the time and nobody said "boo" about this so-called medical crisis. That's just my anecdotal experience, but there was absolutely no sense of a "crisis" or the slightest bit pf panic amonngst any of the hospital and medical people I was dealing with when this was going on.
By Red Tory, at 10:13 AM
The other night I caught Jonah Goldberg flogging his book, "Liberal Fascism", on the Daily Show. It was cringingly awful (the interview, the book just sounds like a long and boring joke) but I stuck with it for reasons I'll explain later in this paragraph. Jon Stewart was clearly still in "ohjustfuckoff" mode from his interview with David Frum and, although it was painful to watch Jonah Goldberg try desperately to pretend "Liberal Fascism" isn't just another ridiculous 100% Rightwing Republican propaganda pamphlet tossed off in time for the Presidential Primaries - a preaching to the converted "book", as it were - well, it was either that or studying French for the last few minutes of my waking hours.
But since the same guys who write books called "Liberal Fascism" are the same guys who cry out in the mainstream media, "Where are the moderate Muslims?", while they back Bush's War on Terror - still - 100% (with any wavering being on the question of whether or not he's gone far enough fast enough), I just thought I'd ask in today's entry, "Where are the moderate Rightwingers?"
Because let's face it - these guys (and Ann Coulter) are 100% in all their Rightwing beliefs and they permeate the mainstream media like, like, like - cat pee on a doormat. Ferchrissakes, for all their claims to belief in Freedom of Speech, they don't even believe in a woman's right to excerise control over her own reproduction.
It's Freedom of their Speech they want protected, while War on Terror/War in Afghanistan dissenters are supposed to preface every argument with "I support the troops" or risk ending up on a no-fly list or a security watch or Gawd knows what lists we don't even know about that have sprung up as a result of 100% Rightwing Republican and New Conservative politicians and their supporters.
Their guys, the guys 100% Rightwingers heil, Bush Inc. and Harper Co., have overseen an invasion into our personal lives, activities, and information histories like nothing that happened even during a time when the world really WAS at war. There's been an unprecedented challenge to our personal freedoms by the Rightwing Establishment they support - 100% - with unelected CEOs essentially being given the power to re-write our national security laws and new Ministries being created to enact and entrench them such that much of what has been done can never be undone.
So where are all the moderate Rightwingers? Certainly, they aren't in the mainstream media, where many of these 100% Rightwingers have been given a pulpit by their employers to spout endless streams of propaganda to naive and frightened fellow travellers. I mean, take a look at some of those 100% Rightwing internet sites and the comments people make on them if you really want to get the willies.
The Rightwing Menace isn't coming, Dear Reader - it's here and it's in power and things are going to get a whole lot worse before they get better because the damage they've done hasn't even begun to be felt yet.
Perhaps, at least, as a way to counteract the propaganda these 100% Rightwingers spew in the mainstream media, every time someone who is 100% Rightwing claims to be Libertarian, we should just say out loud to anyone who may happend to be listening, "You mean Libertarian Fabulist. Yes. There's a book by Jonah Goldberg called "Libertarian Fabulism"." Why pretend any of what they say is the truth. It's gone so well past "You can't handle the truth" for these 100% Rightwingers, that most of them wouldn't know the truth if it bit them in the ass.
Still, the problem is - they vote. And they vote for Fascism when they vote because Fascism works for them. It keeps them employed and on the talk show circuit even when the book they're flogging is just another predicatable 100% Rightwing screed incorrectly titled as the opposite of what is actually is - "Libertarian Fabulism".
I mean, Karl Rove, who should be in jail, will soon be flogging a book - a book he has been writing while at work, apparently, too. Yeah, sure, Dude. Don't bother DOING YOUR JOB - just get on those memoirs and start peddling your traitorous 100% Rightwing rationalizations as to why you've left your country the mess that you have with individual rights and freedoms nipped and tucked for the convenience of the State and its rogue foreign policies and no way of going back to when they mattered.
Seriously, all you Moderate Rightwingers - don't buy the books of these Rightwing Fanatics - okay? You're only contributing to the Menace of Rightwing Fanaticism, herein known on SooeySays as Libertarian Fabulism.
UhOh,MrPrimeMinister-ThisAin'tGonnaBeGoodForBushBusiness
U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins told CTV television yesterday that it was "offensive" his country was on any such torture list and it should be removed.
Haha! Which? Your country? Or the torture list?
But yeah, we know how you feel because we felt that way about being put on your list of countries that harbour terrorists, Mr. Republican American Ambassador. Unless we weren't. I can't remember. At the very least, I remember we were THREATENED with being put on the list if we didn't adopt certain security measures you were URGING our government to implement so that now we have a Public Security Minister named STOCKWELL DAY.
Sigh.
But what are you going to do? It's all part of the War on Terror, isn't it. Just don't forget who started this whole "catching Evil-Doers" game. Hint: It wasn't us.
Here is an update to: PracticeVsPreach
Bart'sNotes
Dust My Broom had republished the letter, but then removed it, fearing liability. I've read it via Google cache; it contains general criticisms about how Levant ran the magazine which look to me to be within the reasonable cut-and-thrust of fair comment. Of course, this response is not surprising: Saudi businessmen, Russian oligarchs, and right-libertarians are united in their fondness for using aggressive libel threats to squash critical scrutiny.
Still, I hope the complaint against Mr. Levant is thrown out by the CHRC as not having any merit whatsoever in a free and democratic society. Besides, what kind of Divinity can't stand up to a little mockery by the infidels? I mean, c'mon - without human frailty, what the hell is the point of Religion? Gawd, I hate it that Imaginationland can still dictate the laws of Society for ALL of us - instead of just the fruitcakes who choose to believe in it.
I haven't seen Juno yet because I don't go to see movies like that in the theatre.
I wait for them to come out on dvd and then I go to the little independent video store in my neighbourhood and rent them.
Oh, and when I say "movies like that", I just mean movies that you may as well watch on tv as opposed to in a theatre. I don't mean movies that are like fairy tales because they aren't true to life. If I meant that I would be saying that I only see Eastern European movies about death and dying in the theatre.
Because we're all dying, Dear Reader - which is why Eastern European movies don't do so well at the box office and Hollywood movies do.
Anyway, I've read enough about Juno to know that it's a movie my daughters will enjoy, while I will feel compelled to say to them at the end of it (and all the way through it, no doubt), "Of course, you know this is only a movie, right, and that in real life she would get AIDS and die for having unprotected sex?" To which they will reply, "Mawwwwwm, we knowwwww".
Still, I don't exactly agree with the Feminist take du jour on Juno, either. Personally, I think it's great that it's a good and entertaining movie with a teenaged girl heroine. I also think it's pretty true to life that a sixteen year old girl like that from that sort of background WOULD have the baby as opposed to an abortion.
Lots of teenaged girls think abortion is bad and they don't make the choice to have one when they get pregnant by their teenaged boyfriends for a variety of teenaged girl reasons - most of them to do with keeping the teenaged boyfriend on the hook for the rest of his life (look out parents of sons - seriously - look out).
They choose to have the baby, and can make that choice, confident that the stigma of teenaged pregnancy is pretty much gone altogether from our society - thanks to Feminism and the progressive politics of the Left.
And that's a good thing, as far as I'm concerned. I don't want any girl or woman to have to have an abortion when she doesn't want one, when she would rather bring the pregnancy to term and have a baby. Sure, teenaged girls don't think beyond that point, but what are you going to do?
So it goes. Democratic society provides the choice. You make the decision.
What's an absolute fairytale ending to Juno, as far as real life facts bear out, is that a teenaged mother, these days, would give her baby up for adoption.
That, Dear Reader, is exactly what DOESN'T happen in our society. NOT that there's anything wrong with that, either, but - teenaged girls don't give babies up for adoption. They keep them. They don't have abortions, they do have babies, they don't give them up for adoption, they keep them.
Those are the facts, ma'am, the way it is, and who am I to judge whether it's right or wrong. It just is.
Juno, on the other hand, is a movie, just like Knocked Up is a movie. And I certainly understand in both movies why abortion wasn't the choice made by the female characters - and strike another one for women that Knocked Up was a huge hit with a female lead who wasn't a wife/girlfriend left to say to the male lead working at the CIA, "What's happening to you?" every day when he comes home from work. The character in Knocked Up is a fleshed out female d'une certaine age who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant and yup - it's believable that she wants to have the baby and nixes the idea of having an abortion straight off. Women like her go to sperm banks in real life, ferchrissakes. Getting pregnant the old fashioned way, why it's practically divine intervention.
What's not believable in Knocked Up is that she has any desire to hook up with the father of the baby - especially THAT father of the baby. But hey, it's a movie.
So, is abortion being left out in the cold in the movies? Well, yes. But abortion's a hard sell and movies are all about sales. Meanwhile, the fact that women in different situations - in real life - are better able to have and keep their babies as opposed to necessarily having abortions or giving their babies up for adoption (and I wish that's exactly what more teenaged mothers would do, so maybe Juno will inspire a few girls to make that choice) is the good news that is being represented in the movies - finally.
Movies with female leads presented in somewhat realistic situations albeit with unlikely fairytale endings? Okay. I can live with that - for a change.
Meanwhile, in real life? It's all about the Right to control our own reproduction, as far as I'm concerned. Choice. That's what Feminists have fought so hard for and will continue to fight so hard for - Choice - for ALL women. Not just white, middle-class girls and women in the movies. Because no girl or woman, in this country, who does NOT want to terminate a pregnancy should be denied the choice to bring her pregnancy to term, either - just as no woman should be denied the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
That's the real life bottom line.
Movies are just movies. Cripes, in real life, the wife/girlfriend of the CIA agent is more likely another CIA agent who knows EXACTLY what is wrong with him because she's just as stressed out as he is that all they do is fuck with other countries while their own becomes a swirling vortex of hell.
So, now that we know the Americans don't think we're doing it right in Afghanistan, what is the New Conservative Government of Canada going to do about it? That's the question our government needs to be asking itself. Why it's pretending to citizens, instead, that the Americans DO think we're doing it right in Afghanistan - when they clearly DON'T - and, in fact, will be sending 2,200 marines to Afghanistan to do it the American way with the International Security Assistance Force as opposed to the U.S. troops already in eastern Afghanistan - is the question Canadians need to be asking themselves.
In the meantime, why is our government mocking Stephane Dion's suggestion that diplomatic efforts be made in Pakistan in an effort to do SOMETHING about the fact that much of the Taliban violence affecting our troops, Canadian troops, is coming from the endless supply of warriors/terrorists/soldiers/insurgents from that very suspect ally of the United States in the War on Terror?
Maybe instead of waging a War of Propaganda on its own citizens, the New Conservative Government of Canada could do its job and protect Canadian troops and Canadian citizens, both, by asking more questions of its relationship with the government of the United States of America.
Just a thought.
AllWeNeedToKnow
A ministerial directive on Dec. 10 ordered the CNSC to reopen the site. The agency refused, insisting a backup safety system be installed to prevent the risk of a meltdown during an earthquake or other disaster.
Gary Lunn strikes me as a dangerous person to be anywhere near power - of any kind.
SheGrabbedMyPad&WroteAPrescription-IWasPowerlessToStopHer
But often doctors are overworked, and the quickest way to deal with patients is to give them the drugs they're seeking.
I really can't stand it when the excuse given by doctors for over-prescribing medication is that patients ask for it. You're doctors. If we could write our own prescriptions - believe me - we would. But we have a very expensive healthcare system that entrusts you with this responsibility.
STOP BLAMING PATIENTS FOR DOCTORS WHO OVER-PRESCRIBE MEDICATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I remember this was the excuse given by doctors for the over-prescribing of antibiotics for children, too. "But parents won't listen to us when we say the infection is viral, not bacterial, and that antibiotics won't work, anyway. So to get rid of them and go on to the next patient, we give them a prescription for antibiotics."
DOCTORS! JUST SAY NO TO DRUGS!!!! SOMETIMES, IT'S YOUR JOB TO SAY NO!!!!!!!!!
I mean, seriously. Whatever happened to "Do No Harm"? And stop blaming overwork, underpay, universal publicly funded healthcare - everybody but the doctors who are over-prescribing medication - FOR THE OVER-PRESCRIBING OF MEDICATION!!!!!!!!
Sorry, eh - but I think I've found the quote already that will best sum up 2008:
Jump!
"Nothing's new, everything's still terrible and there's a lot more bad news to come," said Joe Saluzzi at Themis Trading in Chatham, New Jersey.
Traders - ya gotta luv 'em. So much more fun than psychics.
You've got to hope this guy doesn't have to pay for his New Conservative Party membership, at least:
WeAtTheNatPostListenToHamidKarzai,NotCanadianOppositionLeaders
Aside from evincing an unbecoming spinelessness, the Liberal leader was also misleading the Canadian public. Far from "welcoming" a Canadian military that put daisies in its rifles, President Karzai made it clear that this would make his country a more dangerous place.
Uh... yeah. And when the puppet tells us to dance we at the National Post ask "How spastically?"
Here's Hillary Clinton talking to Tyra Banks about Bill Clinton's infidelity:
"I really had to dig down deep and think hard about what was right for me, what was right for my family," she said of Bill's affair with Monica Lewinsky. "I never doubted Bill's love for me ever, and I never doubted my faith and my commitment to our daughter and our extended family. The momentary feelings--you know, you are mad, you are really upset, you are disappointed--all of that goes through your mind... I have found you really shouldn't make decisions in the heat of those moments."
Good on her again. What's up with this politician nobody could stand two minutes ago suddenly seeming like the best thing since we went back to being able to buy the bread unsliced?
Interesting. This morning I almost linked to a CanWest story about the firing today of Linda Keen, but I honestly thought it too biased - almost as if it was written by Gary Lunn, so I'll go with a Globe article instead. It does remind one, though, of the New Conservative Government of Canada's love of privatization (nuclear industry privatization plans are well underway, not just afoot) and CanWest's love of same - if you're into boycotts of corporate government/media, Dear Reader.
The Globe article is a too careful overly cautious write-up of the latest salvo - the firing of Ms. Keen - but it's the nuclear industry we're talking about here and AECL isn't a body to be fooled around with - although apparently nuclear energy is these days - especially if you have a convenient shortage of isotopes for cancer patients at the ready to exploit.
There's not much more to say about this case that hasn't been said, except that the AECL and the New Conservative Government of Canada are now very clearly colluding in the silencing of the one person who seems to have been doing her job in protecting the safety of Canadians. That the New Conservatives should be hounded out of office by Canadians is evident, but unless the media steps up its reporting on the dangerous partisan games going on here, it's not likely to happen, is it. The AECL? Well, let's just say "scary" and leave it at that. I don't want plutonium mailed to my apartment.
You will notice, even in this article, though, that Stephen Harper and his Minister of the Moment, Gary Lunn, sidestep the actual failing here of the AECL and our government - a failing which could have had much more catastrophic consequences than the healthcare crisis precipitated by the shutdown of the plant - which is to regulate the nuclear industry to ensure the safety of Canadians.
You'd think, at a time when nuclear energy is back on the agenda due to the global warming "crisis" precipitated by the burning of fossil fuels and the resultant greenhouse gas emissions, Canadians would be wondering about the politics of it all. We've got ourselves a corporate government and a corporate media and a lot of money to be made in nuclear energy. I say we start paying closer attention - especially to what's next up - privatization of the nuclear industry.
Because, good luck, my fellow Canadians, getting answers when things go wrong once it's all been privatized.
Here's the article:
ShootingTheMessenger
Whoo-ee! Looks like the Accuser of Ezra Levant to the Alberta (Canadian, too?) Human Rights Commission in the case of the Danish cartoons mocking Mohammed (and really, they could have been funny, at least, for all this trouble) that were published in the now bankrupt Western Standard is also - The Accused!
WeAreWomen,HearUsRoar
Gawd. Men, eh? Why, if it weren't for men, there'd hardly be a need for a Canadian Human Rights Commission at all, the way I see it. (But I'm a woman, so I would see it that way, wouldn't I.)
Now THAT's a guy who needs a good fining, Syed Badi-uddin Soharwardy. NOT that I approve of Human Rights Commissions regulating speech - hey! - but that complaint is about discriminatory behaviour (not to mention, abuse and harassment) - not just offensive speech and bad cartoons depicting imaginary prophets as terrorists.
Ooh. Two birds, Alberta (Canadian, too?) Human Rights Commission. Throw out the complaint against Ezra Levant (trust me, he cannot be a martyr to free speech because I will have to move if he is) and proceed with the complaint against Syed Badi-uddin Soharwardy.
C'mon - people leave whole countries to escape guys like that. Slap him into Canada '08 with a big ol' fine, please.
If it makes you feel any better, the pressure of the Sisterhood is nothing like the ease of the Old Boys Network.
While the Freedom of Speech vs Canadian Human Rights Commission argument plays out on the Internet I'd just like to point out that I believe it is Fascist to want a society in which a woman is forced to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term.
Without the legal right to abortion services, we do not have Democracy, we have Totalitarianism.
So stick that in your pipes and smoke it, you Fascists who want State control over female reproduction but the Freedom of Speech to systematically malign a visible minority.
By the way, has anybody thought to use the defence of believing your own propaganda in the Freedom of Speech vs CHRC case of the hour? NOT that the CHRC should be regulating speech - but since it is (well, after the fact, anyway) why not go with the Hysterical defence? Afterall, we're in a War on Terror going on 7 years now and how hysterical a reaction is that to 9/11?
Yellow alerts, Ashcroft breaking into song and covering statues, re-writing the Constitution, Axes of Evils, Evil-doers everywhere, racial profiling of air travellers, insurance rates skyrocketing, government operatives ratting out spies, the list goes on and on.
We're at War because "they want to take away our Freedoms". I mean, that's straight out of the mouth of the President of the United States of America, ferChrissakes.
I'd certainly say you have a right to be quaking in your boots over the Muslim Menace - if you believe what you read in the papers.
And since y'all write it, I assume you do.
I came across this on CanadianCynic's blog:
Africasgateway?IsThatAnotherEuphemism?
So, IS Bugs Bunny gay?
Well, I'd like to think I had a chance with him, so... no. Daffy Duck, though - no question. He'd blow Bugs in a heartbeat, too.
|
