« February 2008 |
Main
| April 2008 »
IsItReal?OrIsIt"GayNaziBlond"?
Seriously though, Geert should have called his movie "Death To The Great Sultan". Or "Dude, Where's My Fatwah?" Or even, "Three Prophet Mohammeds and a Baby". I mean, if you're going after crazies, you have to put crazy in the title. Like, "Jesus Camp" or "Spice World".
But maybe the West should outlaw official cowardice. That way, every time a threat is made by an Islamic extremist to restrict freedom of expression by killing us all if something is shown, said, drawn (and here's assuming it wasn't Geert's agent with a Kleenex over the receiver who called in the death threat), nothing would be done and the person behind the movie, book, cartoon pointing out how evil Islam is would just be another run-of-the-mill bigot instead of a freedom fighter.
Cripes, I'd kill for the kind of publicity Islamic extremists get every time they want to shut something down, not to mention the publicity whatever it is they want to shut down gets, too. Imagine Sooey on the nightly news every time some legislator here tries to restrict her right to have an abortion - so that every morning when she wakes up and says to her mirror mirror on the wall, "Gee, I think I'll get pregnant today so I can have an abortion later", she ends up on the nightly news: "WTF? Some wad is trying to take away my right to an abortion!"
And, I mean, it's not as if Geert's movie isn't on the Internet for everybody and his Auntie Ilsa to see, with or without LiveLeak. He's even being sued already for getting his Islamic murderers mixed up with his Islamic rappers: I'dLikeAChickenShawarmaToGo,Please
I mean, c'mon. Aside from the shaved heads due to male pattern balding and the de rigeur compensatory beards, they look about as much alike as Britney Spears and Aileen Wuornos.
Okay, okay. Islamic rappers and Islamic murderers DO all look alike. And like FuzzyWuzzy. Say, and a bit like Britney Spears and Aileen Wuornos, too, if you squint and imagine Aileen with a shaved head.
To be fair to China, those are some beefy looking Tibetan monks protesting Chinese oppression - Chinese oppression which is nothing new to Chinese dissidents, I'm sure - so it's no wonder China is accusing the West of subterfuge.
And, I mean, c'mon - it's not like it hasn't been done before. Cripes, even Dudley DoRight Canada had Quebec police instigating unlawful behaviour in the midst of legitimate political protestors at the American Partnership for Prosperity and Security Summit in Montebello last year.
Look, let's face it, the U.S. (like us, too - no pun intended) is in debt to China - bigtime. And a boycott of the Beijing Olympics when China is out to prove it isn't just an oppressive communist dictatorship turned rapacious capitalist superpower, would be a much bigger snub, the old "haha! your country isn't up to Olympic hosting standards", than even the boycott of the Moscow Olympics was back in 1980.
Oh ironies of ironies, eh? Imagine boycotting an Olympic Games over an invasion of Afghanistan now. Of course, it'd just be the winter games and bye bye Vancouver 2010, so - it would be purely symbolic for most boycotting countries, anyway. And being the New Canada that we are we could just switch the name to the "New Canada Games", and invite only northern Christian democracies like us, New Canada, to participate.
But the U.S. is in debt to China in a way that should be sending chills down all our spines - free monk Tibet or just regular monk Tibet - and although any time is a good time for a boycott, I think, Olympic boycotts are pretty yesterday. And increasingly hard to justify when everybody's hands are so dirty between the coming together in the international spirit of sport and drug testing - and a lot of "young people fucking".
So, I propose, as punishment for its oppression of both Tibetan monks AND the Chinese workers who made the Olympics possible, China be forced to sign on to Kyoto or somesuch climate change agreement that will actually make IT - weather - the global concern that human rights would be if not for such threats to the West's freedoms that the Islamic Menace has presented to it over the past several years - threats that have necessitated torture and and an ongoing War on Terror.
Because, to be fair to the U.S. and any Olympics hosting country, it's always going to be something, isn't it, that makes having the Olympics in your country make everybody feel kind of hypocritical for attending - as good a reason as any for making one of those old timey days superpowers like Greece or Rome the permanent host country - and it's not like you can always prevent yourself from looking like the human rights bad guy when, really, you're just responding to provocation.
Take 9/11, for example. There wouldn't be a War on Terror if it wasn't for 9/11. I mean, it's not like Bush Inc. pulled the whole thing out of its ass. Still, with the acquittal of those marines accused in the Haditha massacre, it's not likely the War on Terror is going anywhere faster'n Tibet is - even though, like I say, 9/11 was hardly the fault of the U.S.
Anyway, since Kyoto is there and the U.S. hasn't signed on and isn't likely to, and we all know how China loves to save face in the same way that we in the West like to call a bluff (think JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis where we almost got blown to bits except that Khrushchev turned out to be saner'n JFK who called his bluff but good) - why doesn't Canada step in as peacemaker (remember those days? me neither) and say, "Hey - sign this, China - and we'll call it even"?
That would make for two birds with one stone, really, too - because then China would have to slow 'er down to meet greenhouse gas emission targets OR pay through the nose for NOT meeting them, Ontario would get a much needed leg back up in the manufacturing sector - in spite of Jim Flaherty - the U.S. would get some breathing room (no pun intended ) to beef up its industrial output while China pays the piper, and everybody would get to go to the Beijing Olympics as scheduled a decade or so ago when they were so awarded by the I.O.C. before all the jockeying for the privilege of hosting the 2008 Summer Olympic Games even began. Three birds. Or four, even.
TheAntiImmigrationFreedomParty?
Wilders, leader of the anti-immigration Freedom Party, has called for a stop to migrants from Muslim countries as well as a stop to the building of new mosques in the Netherlands. He claims he isn't against Muslims but against their religion.
Dutch officials were bracing for violent demonstrations against Wilders's film, and Dutch Muslim leaders urged restraint.
Late on Friday, two cars were set on fire in the town of Utrecht in a protest against the film, according to police.
Gee, that's gotta hurt. But on the bright side, maybe Muslims are finally getting the message from the Christian Right that the Koran is crazy and hateful, not Islamic Fundamentalists.
C'mon. Let's be real. If Obama represented change, he wouldn't be running for President. His wife would.
Gee, I guess Earth Hour is the new Islamic Menace to Rightwing bloggers, eh? Or did I just imagine reading a bunch of 'em bragging about counteracting any good effects of other citizens turning out their lights during Earth Hour by turning on more of theirs?
Clever. Except their Moms are gonna be sum mad when they get the Hydro bill in a couple of months.
Still, their behaviour ("let's spray pesticides in all the ponds to kill frogs so they can't be harbingers of bad environmental news anymore") makes it pretty clear that, for energy use to be reduced, users need to pay for the energy they consume. No more hidden subsidies for suburbanites and country farmers. Pay what it actually costs to live where you live and let's go from there to dealing with environmental clean up as a collective.
In other words, use less energy or pay through the nose for your suburban lifestyle that is one of the most heavily subsidized individual rights and freedoms on the planet.
Next to banks that give out sub-prime mortgages, of course.
Anyway, I think it's time the Left took over the climate change argument on behalf of poor people, who don't use up much of the Earth Resources and who should be lauded for that fact instead of encouraged to join all the other energy hogs on the planet by becoming rich and consuming more and taking up ever increasing amounts of space.
Being poor and not owning a car and living in an apartment should be the Holy Grail of our society. Enough of Al Gore et al. There is a political argument to be made by the Left that since poor people bear almost no responsibility for climate change, and rich people bear almost all of it, they should be the citizens held accountable at clean up time.
Because if you take a deeper look at the Right's actions during Earth Hour (of turning on lights instead of turning off lights) it's basically a rebellion against wealthy people, as personified by Al Gore, telling everybody else to cut down on energy use to save the planet. It's the most egregious example of "do as I say and not as I do" out there today in the public sphere.
So why has it been left (Left) to the Right to point it out? Eh? I mean, if you don't want to be excused of acting like silver spoon socialists, don't act like silver spoon socialists.
I've lived in a house in the suburbs and owned a car and now I live in an apartment and don't own a car and I can tell you - I'm doing my bit for the planet just by making minimum wage. It's egregious to me to be lectured by a wealthy person about climate change. It really is. And I'm telling you, whoever is reading this, that the Left needs to take a page from the Right's comic book and make the argument that environmental devastation is subsidized by our governments to the benefit of middle-class suburbanites and wealthy people - everywhere.
And that's not fair.
Oh, and don't forget that the added benefit of espousing the environmental clean up argument "Make the Rich Pay for It" is that you'll finally off load all those silver spoon socialists who like the idea of a pristine planet (if only for the resale value down the road) but don't want to actually be out of pocket for one.
For those of you who are afraid Feminism is turning men into women (and also for those of you who assumed Sooey's beauteousness is unassailable by time), be warned that I just plucked a grey eyebrow from an area of my forehead where no eyebrow has gone before. So, it could be that the opposite is happening and women are turning into men.
Or, it could be that all Scottish people end up looking like John Knox.
That is all. Now we will never speak of this again.
Apparently, according to the blogosphere on the Right wing side of cyber space, hosting this movie makes you a hero, so, even though I'm on the Left wing side of cyber space and we normally eschew such blatant and grandstanding heroics - here goes:
Fitna,TheMovie-ViaDustMyBroom
See, here it is:
UnrepentantOldHippie
Here's that biblical quote again:
"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."
Okay, Feminists. I hereby declare the War on Gawd, then. Bring it on, Gawwwwwwwwwwd! Because, seriously, no way is a mythical fucker gonna have more rights than me. No way.
There's a new study out claiming that men are depressed to be men now because women have too much power these days. Apparently, they want to go back to a time when they had all the jobs and women stayed home to raise their children.
IfYouDon'tLikeTheseNeoConLies,We'veGotOthers
Hm. I don't believe that study. I know men. They like it when the little woman goes out to work because it brings home more money for them - and at divorce time, it gets split 50/50. They also like it that they get paternity leaves and even have the option of staying at home with the kids if they want to, without fear of being laughed at by all the Feminist moms at the playground.
In fact, they get a lot of praise, men who stay at home with children. Lots of praise. Way more praise than do women who do the exact same thing. It's all, "Ooh, look at him. What a real man he must be. A terrific father, too. He's made some ugly Feminist bitch a lucky woman. What kind of ungrateful skank goes out to work while her wonderful husband has to stay home with the children and do her job for her while she tarts around town trying to be one of the boys?"
I don't know any men who are afraid, embarassed, depressed to call themselves a "man" either. Not a one. In fact, they sing it, these days - loudly - when they're playing Guitar Hero or Rock Band: "I'm a man! Don't you know what I am!"
I get it that men would like Feminists to go away, though. Tough nuts, boys. Seriously. Toughen up your nuts. Because we're just going to become worse ballbusters as we prune up. I mean, I'm really vain and I have no intention of having any kind of surgery to make me look weird and completely discredit anything I have to say about grrl power.
Because that's the other thing isn't it. This push to convince women they need to have surgery to look good when even the visually impaired among us can see very clearly that all surgery does is make you look weird - and probably shorten your life - which is the one place we had it over men now that we've stopped bleeding to death in childbirth.
(And I speak of here in the West. In Africa, 1 in 8 women still dies in childbirth. I haven't seen the study, so I'll do it here for you, boil it right down, too: Feminism = A better life for women.)
Anyway, I think all this whining about how Feminists have ruined being a man is coming from the Right. That's because it's just as terrified of men having role choices as it is of women having role choices. And guess what? Women will continue to take over in the workplace because men enjoy spending more time in the home. They really do. And they won't give it up. So soon, the workplace will be chock a block with women trying to break through that glass ceiling that won't even be there anymore, so egalitarianized will the workplace have become.
Because I don't know if you've noticed, but it's all about teamwork in the workplace nowadays. That's bullshit, too, of course, but most work is, you know. I've worked and I've stayed at home raising kids and now I'm back working. If you're looking for meaning in life I can tell you where you'll find it and it ain't at work.
Better yet, just stay home and don't raise kids. Before you know it, you'll have so much meaning in your life you'll have to write a book.
Anyway, if there's one thing studies about how Feminism has ruined men all leave out - conveniently - it's that men do NOT do things that are not in their best interests. If there's one kind of primal wiring that's in no danger of being switched around by Feminists it's that men have an uncanny knack for sussing out what they want and going for it and ignoring what everybody else thinks - including Feminists.
So I think we can all count on social progress going forward. Sure, NeoCon men will be depressed, but who cares? They're clearly just a bunch of whiny assholes who can't keep up. Take a pill, dudes. I'm sure that's where this study about men being depressed to call themselves men is leading anyway - a new depression medication for men who are depressed to call themselves men thanks to Feminism - "Feminisgra".
I've noticed that many bloggers in favour of the section of the Canadian Human Right Commission that allows for complaints against offensive speech to be made by citizens, that are then investigated, prosecuted and judged by the CHRC, point out that they do not think the complaint made against Mark Steyn and Macleans will go ahead to the prosecution stage of the process set out by the CHRC.
???
I dunno. I don't think I'd be going too far out on a limb to argue the opposite, quite frankly. I mean, I really have to wonder how many articles of Mr. Steyn's these bloggers who don't think he'll be found guilty by the CHRC have read to think he doesn't have a bit of a thing going on about Muslims. For instance, even now, it seems to me Mr. Steyn's defence against the charge at hand (which is essentially that he is Anti-Muslim) is to argue that his Islamophobia is justified BECAUSE of the danger presented to the western world by Muslims. He has even, in several articles since the charge, gone on to accuse Feminists and anyone else who doesn't agree with his version of reality, of aiding and abetting an Islamic Menace in its determined and illegitimate attempt to take over the world.
You know, Conrad Black's lawyer didn't tell Conrad Black to shut up, either, is all I'm sayin'. I just wonder why the defenders of the CHRC are so reluctant to ponder the possibility, which seems quite likely to me, that the complaint against Mark Steyn WILL progress to the stage of the CHRC process that leads, so far, in 100% of all cases, to conviction.
I've never visited Stormfront, the notorious White Supremacist site allegedly frequented by Canadian Human Rights Commission employees, and ex-employees - doing the job, or ex-job, as the case may be - but I have read several Canwest editorials in real live print newspapers that I've found to be both sexist and racist - it's why I cancelled my subscription to the Ottawa Citizen a few years ago - so I'm wondering now if anyone has ever made a complaint to the CHRC regarding Canwest editorials that didn't make it on to the agenda for one reason or another.
I mean, lots of people who aren't White Supremacists have read offensive editorials in Canwest newspapers, but how many people who aren't White Supremacists - or see above - looking for hate speech to be delighted - or repulsed - by, visit Stormfront? Sure, I could see accidentally clicking on Stormfront thinking you're linking to a weather site and reading a few posts and wondering, "Grampa Angus?" but it strikes me that Mark Steyn might have a point about the CHRC being a bit of a selective racket if no one, ever, has complained about a sexist and/or racist Canwest editorial causing them offence.
Because, you can cancel your subscription - and, like I say, I did - but since Canwest is often the only game in town, it does mean going without a local newspaper, which for many people is a cherished daily ritual. You know, like a morning constitutional.
And it does seem unfair that those of us who are offended by sexist and racist editorials should have to go without news gathered by perfectly good reporters who have to work for Canwest because it owns such a huge chunk of the Canadian news market.
I dunno, readers might mistake a dog turd for the Vancouver Sun, Canwest, but a Pro-Palestinian parody? (best line: "The truth is biased against Israel."):
CanwestVsRealFreeSpeech
The Canwest suit lists a print shop and Mordecai as named defendants, and then pads the list out with six unnamed defendants: John Doe #1, John Doe #2, John Doe #3, and Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #2, Jane Doe #3. While ostensibly centering on a commercial violation of trade mark, the charges read like a political attack. They assert that Mordecai and the six John/Jane Doe defendants have been involved in "anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian media activities", and have written or spoken "harshly critical of the State of Israel and of the plaintiff and anyone who publishes articles or views which the defendants perceive to be contrary to their own views". In Canwest's Writ of Summons Mordecai's name is repeatedly linked to Canada Palestine Support Network, a group that is not even alleged to have anything to do with the parody. They demand a sweeping variety of remedies including an injunction restraining the defendants from "publishing injurious falsehoods by way of newspapers or other publications, on the internet or otherwise".
So, newspaper chains in Canada, eh, fellow Canadians who no longer read newspapers? Thank Gawd for our foreign ownership restrictions, at least. Well, here's hoping all the NeoCon Free Speech Warrior Pundits who work for Canwest will resign in protest of the owners' and their truckloads of lawyers' (and in Vancouver, Canwest owns both competing Rightwing newspapers - the Province and the Sun, "Dumb and Dumber") over-the-top attack on having their hilariously biased editorial stance on everything to the left of Attila the Hun mocked.
Disclaimer: {{Hugs, Israel - Sooey Luvs U!!!}}
Do what you can. So, to all those men on the Right, here, who fear the Islamic Menace, there, Sooey invites you to become Feminists and join in our neverending battle for reproductive freedom!
Even Churchill is one of us now! (See quote below):
"We shall defend our autonomy over our bodies, whatever the publicly funded healthcare costs may be, we shall fight in our homes and in the streets, we shall fight in the hospitals and the schools, we shall fight in the churches and in the courts and in the legislatures; we shall never surrender our wombs to the State."
Keep Canada safe for women, become a Feminist today.
I don't like Stephen Harper. I don't like the men behind Stephen Harper. I don't like the men in front of Stephen Harper. I don't like men who like Stephen Harper.
But is he any more of a strongman than any of our Liberal Prime Ministers were? Is he selling us out to the U.S. more than Paul Martin did? What about The Old Monster? And Mulroney? Don't forget Mulroney. Is Stephen Harper any worse than Mulroney in terms of selling us out to U.S. interests, for instance?
I'd say yes, but I'm a Canadian Federalist - which Mulroney was in his way, too, and which Harper is most definitely not. He is, in fact - the letter signed, sealed and delivered - an Alberta Separatist. Still, if there's one thing that is distinctly out of fashion in Canadian politics these days, it's Canadian Federalism. You almost never hear anyone in Canadian politics say they want a stronger federal government and less provincial autonomy, do you. Somewhere along the road in Canadian politics, Federalism was kicked to the curb.
Alberta Separatism, meanwhile, is probably stronger than Quebec Separatism was on its heyday of November 15th, 1976.
And, you know, we associate Power Corp (speaking of Rene Levesque), the traditional maker of Prime Ministers, both Liberal and Conservative, with an essential Canadianness, but is it really true? Are we safer in the hands of a Power Corp choice for PM? Or are we just conditioned to think we are while their picks are really just more skillful at politics and selling us out to Power Corp interests that may or may not be Canadian interests?
Because I don't know what goes on behind the scenes but from what I'm seeing up front, Stephen Harper, who comes to us straight from the Rightwing think tanks of Alberta (I know, it's almost a compound oxymoron if you add a word: think tanks/Alberta politics, an oxymoron if you take one away: think/Alberta) is anathema to what I consider a Canadian Prime Minister should be, first and foremost - Canadian, but Stephane Dion and Jack Layton, who don't seem to be affiliated with any specific power group, let alone Power Corp, both seem to me to be very Canadian - and yet hung out to dry by the media in a way which would seem to want to convince Canadians that they are bad for the country, or would be if they got any kind of favourable press that might lead to either one of them being elected Prime Minister.
So, is it really the Canadian political system that isn't working? I mean, Stephane Dion certainly defied the odds the media set out for him by winning the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. Stephen Harper defied another set of odds the media set out in becoming Prime Minister. Afterall, Canadian elections aren't rigged. Somebody voted New Conservative in the last election, somebody stupid, in my opinion - but the choice was either Stephen Harper or more of Paul Martin (Canadians being determined, it would seem - and who knows? maybe rightly so - to keep the NDP an opposition only party) so how stupid, really. Would more Paul Martin and less Stephen Harper make for a better Canada? I doubt it.
Anyway, my point is, I don't think it's the political system in this country that's the problem, if there even is a problem (and lots of Canadians on the Right would argue there isn't - if they could stop complaining long enough about the "damn gubmint" to realize it's their guys who are in power) - it's the perception some of us have that Canadians are not being fully informed by our media - enough and until it's too late - as to who is behind the winners and, more importantly, sometimes, who isn't.
If Obama's so different, why WAS he attending a Church led by the politically inconvenient RevRend Wright? I mean, how is his situation any different from the succession of white male politicians who have been apologists for the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Billy Grahams of their world? What sort of change does he really represent if he's just another Gawd fearing American politician?
I realize no one cares, but Feminists get blamed for a lot of stuff by the same people being investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission for alleged hate speech against Islamic Menaces (I mean, read Mark Steyn et al and you'll note that Feminists are actually blamed for Islamists becoming such Menaces), but they also get blamed for a lot of stuff by mainstream Conservatives, too - especially Pro-Lifers. Pro-Lifers hate us - to the point where I feel nervous every time I make a Pro-Choice entry on my blog. I really do. I use humour to deflect possible gun shots through my apartment window, but from what I've read, even by mainstream religious leaders, it's risky business to speak up too loudly for women's reproductive rights - no matter where you live.
That's why men who can actually "make it so" (equality for women) - won't. They don't even care enough about women's actual rights to risk the professional fallout, let alone the personal. Oh - and they don't want to give up their communion wafer on Sunday.
Because, bear in mind, doctors who perform abortions have been shot and killed for doing their jobs and yet, I notice no one has had the stones to make a complaint to the CHRC about the anti-choice rhetoric out there in the mainstream media and legislatures across this country, including the House of Commons, that certainly gives me pause every time I decide to take it on here at SooeySays.
Anyway, this morning I've read enough backpatting vs growling about the current CHRC case against Mark Steyn that I almost can't believe how deftly men on both the right and the left can argue this sow's ear (I mean, c'mon - the same media who fawned over the man behind the scenes is the same media accusing him now of being the man behind the scenes) into a silk purse.
White supremacists are easy, ordinary Conservative legislators and their friends in the media are hard. You want hatred? Try being a Feminist and a woman in this country and defending yourself against men on the Right AND Left who argue that we're in Afghanistan to establish women's rights while those same men make every attempt to destroy them here at home. Bill C-484 is allowed to be argued, disingenuous as it all is - as being a bill to protect women from violent men, when, in fact, it is an attempt to recriminalize that which gives women personhood - the right to control our own reproduction.
I've read, in the comments on a certain blog, an anonymous opinion that women who have abortions should be put to death. You tell me. Hate speech? Or are you not a Feminist woman fighting to maintain legal access to abortion services (which really are not what our governments pretend they are - especially here in Ontario where the Premier is a very skillful politician, to put it mildly), so it's just Internet chatter of no consequence.
Men who believe Feminists are forsaken form our Government, the Government of Canada, and they constitute the bulk of our Media. They aren't on some website inciting racist posts (and, I'm sorry, but when the rest of us can't tell the good guy racist posts from the bad guy racist posts, it's time to take a break from playing Al Pacino in Cyber Cruising) - unless they are - from Internet racists. They're making laws and setting policies and giving all the right press to men who hate Feminists for everything that is right AND wrong in the world.
This is the problem, isn't it - these people: InSearchOfABetterWayToKill see themselves as the Great World Hope and truly, madly, deeply want to make it over in their image.
Gee, I'm seriously starting to think China doesn't give a Year of the Rat's Ass what the West thinks about how things should be for Tibet.
Gawd, I really hope Bush Inc.'s legacy isn't the War on Terror AND a nuclear showdown with China.
Crap, what if Bush Jr. thinks The Great Wall is like the Berlin Wall and all he needs to do is tell China's leaders to "tear down that wall" and democracy will flood into Tibet like the sea over a broken levee?
I forget, what was the reasoning for the ban on cigarette advertising, anyway? To make smoking seem even cooler to kids looking for the edge in sophistication?
I mean, hasn't the rate of smoking among teenaged girls been on a steady rise for years?
I live in Ottawa, downtown, and today, Easter Monday, we all went for lunch at Dunn's, a restaurant on Elgin Street, the same street where the Canadian Human Rights Commission vs Mark Steyn is meeting on March 25th - which is TOMORROW as luck would have it.
Anyway, thinking today was March 25th, I kept my eye out for Neo-Nazis milling about Elgin Street. (I was going to tell the wait staff to give them "waitress eyes" if any came in and sat down to order lunch - "waitress eyes" being an expression my ex came up with to describe how an ex-girlfriend would walk about her apartment looking just over his head if they were having a tiff so he couldn't quite make eye contact with her "to ask for a cup of coffee - at least".)
Well, I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but the lunchtime crowd at Dunn's on an Easter Monday looks surprisingly Neo-Nazi-ish (when you're looking for Neo-Nazis, anyway) but in the end I thought, "enh - maybe they're big tippers" and didn't say anything about all the Neo-Nazis who seemed to enjoy a bowl of matzo ball soup for lunch. (And none of this is meant to imply that only Neo-Nazis support Mark Steyn in his trial(sentencing?) against(thanks to?) the CHRC - as many plain ordinary decent people to the Left of Mark Steyn AND Neo-Nazis, er, not that Mark Steyn isn't also to the Left of Neo-Nazis, support Mark Steyn vs the CHRC - some of us because we don't want our Rogers cable fees to go up if he loses.
(Finding the correct terminology for this... case(?) is tricky because the CHRC is both prosecutor AND judge in these... situations(?) so the usual legal terms don't apply - I don't... think(?)...)
Anyway, still not realizing it's not quite March 25th, I went back to my apartment to get the dog and take him for a walk to look for Neo-Nazis. (Which is hilariously ironic, I realized later, because my dog, a terribly racist sheltie/beagle cross has something against black labs and, okay, ALL black dogs, and throws a shitfit of barking whenever he sees one.) We went a bit off course so we could check out 160 Elgin where the case is being heard to give "hairy eyeballs" to Neo-Nazis AND hopefully snap a piccie of Mark Steyn standing close enough to a Neo-Nazi to snag a reward one blogger is offering up (this thing is BIG in the blogosphere, if you're a first time SooeySays reader) and maybe even get Mark Steyn to autograph my "AbortionRights4Ever!" placard but - although we saw lots of Neo-Nazi-ish types walking up and down Elgin, we didn't see any of them go into #160 and we didn't see Mark Steyn - ANYWHERE.
So, imagine how creeped out I am NOW to realize that I saw Neo-Nazis EVERYWHERE (although no Mark Steyn) even though the... event(?) isn't until tomorrow. Seriously, either Ottawa is over-run 24/7 with Neo-Nazis OR we've reached that fashion breaking point in "not still winter/not quite spring" when no matter what your politics, you LOOK like a Neo-Nazi.
Maybe it's the bright spring light against the cold hard mountains of snow reflecting off the pale wintered-out Ottawans wearing sunglasses to protect their weakened eyes from the glare? Maybe?
Timing is everything, as they say, but isn't the U.S. in hawk to China - bigtime? So... I'm just sayin'. Free Tibet and all, sure (although, here's hoping little Tibetan girls will be able to grow up to be monks one day, too). And the Olympics are a big bargaining chip, but, c'mon - it's not like any of the Shantytowners would be going, anyway.
Yeah, yeah - I'll give back my international humanitarian award tomorrow. But like I said in a previous SooeySays:
YeahSure,BoycottTheBeijingOlympicsNOW
This just in - Cub Reporter, Dick Cheney, has discovered that Hamas is a roadblock to peace. I quote here directly:
"There is evidence that Hamas is supported by Iran and Syria and they are doing everything they can to torpedo the peace process," Mr Cheney said.
Well, personally, I would have been quite comfortable leaving out the "is supported by Iran and Syria" and just going with "Hamas is doing everything IT (not they, Cheney, you ignoramus) can to torpedo the peace process."
Of course, being more passive aggressive than Cheney I would have added "such as it is" at the end.
But yeah, Hamas doesn't want peace with Israel. Good call, Cheney. So... is there... like... a plan B?
Okay. Now that it looks like Obama's going to get the Democratic nomination, in spite of the fact that white Americans are now quite comfortable openly expressing their racism (as if it's the same thing as black resentment of white power, and not just revRend Wright - who's probably on crack - doing black power chuRch seRmons) and will not vote for him in numbers sufficient to beat McCain, Hillary needs to do for her country what Carrot Top should do for his career - if Sooey was his manager:
That's right. I'm talking about doing her next speech in blackface. Just send it up, girl. That L'il Obama thinks he can pull off a speech on race that has him compared, by the Democrats for Obama half of the media, to Thomas Jefferson?! You get out that shoe polish and you make that speech for gender equality and you show America the Beautiful who's got the real stones to be President.
Bearing in mind, of course, that even Thomas Jefferson wasn't Thomas Jefferson, if you catch my drift, but a fun house mirror held up to American society never hurt anyone's career, now did it. Well, not counting the time Ted Danson showed up to a Whoopi Goldberg roast in blackface - but hey - she thought it was hilarious. And, I'm sure, at the very least, Bill will, too.
Look, now is no time to be a lady, especially a white lady Democrat running for the presidential nomination.
Oh, and don't forget the hair. I'd go with orange dreadlocks. But that's me, always with the subtle homage to Carrot Top. But do it up big so America gets the joke. Now is the time to pull out all the stops and go for broke, Hillary. Take it all the way or go down swinging those dreads.
Remember back in the 80s when Ernst Zundel was a Holocaust denying crank in a yellow construction hat, the Britney Spears of the Nazi brigade?
I mean, the WORST Holocaust denying crank in a yellow construction hat. Because, make no mistake about it - I agree with everybody else on the Internet when it comes to Ernst Zundel. Everybody who thinks he was the WORST, that is.
Well, it seems like ever since we deported him to Germany, he's all the rage again. I mean, you can't go to a political blog these days without reading Ernst this and Ernst that. BAD Ernst this and BAD Ernst that, of course.
I just wish somebody would explain the point of the yellow construction hat. I never did get the why of it.
There's about to be another Internet go 'round about why our fathers fought in WWII. Mine died when I was young so my Mom had to do the talking for him, and although she never said specifically why he fought in the war, she had a general explanation of why everybody else she knew did: "it was your duty, there was no choice but to go".
But, of course, she was speaking about what she knew to be true - THEN.
Well, I suppose life is in vain, too, isn't it. But a blogger took a lot grief a while back for pointing out the selfishness in making a personal argument to continue a political war - which all war is, of course. It was an argument pretty much summed up by, "my son died and I feel like his death will have been in vain if this war doesn't continue".
We can assume the "to a successful conclusion".
While I don't agree with that sentiment, I appreciate the honesty of it. I appreciate even more the honesty in confronting it. Because that's the devil, isn't it. Government's are capable of such evil in the name of motherhood. If we, the people, don't confront the lies, who will?
Just know that the honest reaction to an honest reaction, can result in a lynch mob. But so it has been ever thus for truthtellers. It's a losing of your head (we're conditioned to lie from birth, afterall) that can quite literally result in losing your head.
Anyway, the mythologizing of war (it's eventually a Hollywood production, they all get put up there on the big screen) puts me in mind of the Deerhunter, the movie that wasn't Apocalypse Now. It's a powerful movie with an ending that goes right to the heart of what's either right or wrong with America (and not knowing gives me pause about the outcome of the upcoming Presidential election).
After all the characters go through as a result of America's War in Vietnam, the movie ends with the survivors, sitting around the dinner table, singing "God Bless America". And you believe it, you really do. Because you can't imagine the human will it would take for them to confront the truth.
Welcome to Christian Corporate Canada brought to you by Christian Corporate America, workers, whether you like it or not:
CallingAllChaplains,TheReceptionistWantsAnAbortion!
The concept comes from Marketplace Chaplains in Dallas, Tex., which oversees 2,000 chaplains in 300 companies, says Bruce Mitchell, national director of chaplains at Outreach Canada.
No. American Corporate Christian Evangelicals moving up into Canadian territory? We'd never have guessed it, what with our New Conservative government and all, headed up by Christian Evangelical Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, and his Family Values (except when it comes to the Budget) Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, and assorted Gawdlurvin' Feministhatin' Members with their desperate no-holds-barred ongoing attempts to recriminalize abortion through such backdoor means as Bill C-484.
Not to mention stacking the panel that selects who will make up our country's roster of judges with Pro-Lifers, while Liberals hold off calling an election until a good man reason comes along, I guess.
But I'm sure this isn't political. Oh wait, I stand corrected:
"We assume it must be a fundamental threat to our civilization or something. It's an emotional reaction and it's usually not based in knowledge or rationality," said Williams.
No. Believe me, it's based on knowledge and rationality, too. Also history and reason and experience. But you seem pretty closed minded and defensive for someone who claims special insight into what what workers want, pastoR, or revRend, or fatheR, or whatever title has been bestowed upon you by your chuRch.
Gee, I wonder if anybody has thought to make a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission about this very serious invasion of a Feminist worker's right to be free of religious proselytizing in her workplace by misogynistic Christian Evangelicals? Because I figure these so-called chaplains are mostly all about the violent and hateful Pro-Life movement down in the United States - how 'about that, pRofessoR of marketplace theology and spirituality at Regent College, Paul Williams?
Oh damn, I mean, darn (shit, that otta net me another eternity of burning in hell). I keep forgetting that Catch-22 for Feminists - religion is protected under our hate speech... by-laws? - not women. Or, well, religion would just have to shut the fuck up, wouldn't it.
Anyway, a list of corporations that inflicts these true believers in cReationism on workers would be appreciated in order that I can, at the very least, begin a personal boycott of whatever else, beyond a big ol' sexist ManGawd, it is that they're selling.
Wow. I'd like to sit in on a course called: "Marketplace Theology and Spirituality". I bet I'd learn a lot about sales.
And what does WRABO stand for? Why, White Rightwingers Against Black Obama, of course.
Look, you can be FOR Hillary because she's a woman, but being against Obama because he's black? That's racist. It is. There's just no way to dress that one up, even as political incorrrectness.
And, I mean, if you're afraid of THIS black man because he's black? Yikes! You are one big ol' white rightwing racist.
NDP and direct it at the New Conservatives, please.
PersonalProfit,SocializedRisk
Do NOT blow it and direct the above slogan at the Liberals, thank you. Either direct it at the New Conservatives or give it to the Liberals to direct at the New Conservatives.
That is all.
You know, I like that the NDP has stayed pretty much out of the mostly Internet debate concerning free speech and the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I mean, it's not really free speech so much is it's offensive speech that we're talking about here, but the CHRC isn't so much a human rights commission on matters of speech as it is a discredited old fashioned/futuristic censor, either.
Really, we have laws against hate speech in this country (except for women - never forget... no wait... always remember - women are not protected against hate speech by our legislators because that would mean men and their Gawd would have no one to legally direct hate towards), so I'm not sure why we have government bureaucrats operating outside the law for it, too.
In any case, once you're on the Internet attacking the lawyers who defend people charged by the CHRC with some sort of speech crime against another citizen or group of citizens (bearing in mind that the CHRC, as a government body, prosecutes with the full weight of the State behind it and at taxpayer expense), I'm not sure how much more clearly you can state your position.
At least the NDP, my party of choice (because I overall weigh what I like in a party and ignore perfection - and winnability, I guess) has had the good sense to pretty much steer clear of this issue, since it comes down with both goody-two-shoes on the side of censorship (and it's funny how the biggest defenders of the CHRC are mostly rabidly anti-NDP Liberals, eh?) and would come across as even more Orwellian than it already does if it were to weigh in on the matter.
But if it were ever to speak out against the lawyers defending the accused by way of character assassination, that would pretty much cancel out the "overall" for me. Because when they come for the lawyers, it's over. Politics is way beside the point. The Internet is as yesterday as freedom fries. The fat lady has sung.
Thankfully, it hasn't said much. Or anything, really. In fact, what's been said has mostly been said by the aforementioned rabidly anti-NDP Liberal lawyers. Lawyers, Canadian lawyers, picking one issue (although I'm sure they could find others) to attack defence lawyers on because they do not believe in a certain accused's right to a fair trial even when it's the State doing the prosecuting.
I don't even know the bad name for that kind of politics.
In the meantime, a lawyer, now a judge, once said to me in answer to this question, "What do you do when you know your client is guilty?" with his eyes wide, arms up in the air, absolutely incredulous at what I was asking:
"I'm a lawyer?!"
I dunno but there's something inappropriate sounding in a hearty "Happy Easter, Christian!"
But, of course, I am a heathen.
Cripes, being a heathen is so awkward on Good Friday. Thank Gawd it's a Statutory Holiday and we all get to celebrate it in our own Christian way, away from Christian co-workers. And it's really so much more humane, now, than when you were a little girl and powerless against Christianity being shoved down your throat by educators, politicians, family friends, uncles, ministers, the whole time thinking "what a sexist load!" - while you sport a brand new Easter bonnet.
Indeed, little girls grow up feeling just like Judas must have felt, the way we betray our core beliefs just to get the religious bling. And there's always the upside for literally fatherless girls of pleasing so easily men who really really really just want you to believe in Christianity so your soul will be saved and you'll stop agitating for the right to wear pants to school.
Still, without Judas and hypocrites, what would there be to forgive, eh? And I remember reading once that forgiveness is the cornerstone of Catholicism. Not confession, but forgiveness. So yeah, I forgive you, all you Christian men who fed me a steady diet of misogynistic propaganda so that I could grow up to be a Feminist and enjoy watching people cross the street when they see me marching towards them with my placard "Get Your Hands Off My Womb!"
But seriously, there's something vaguely anti-Semitic about these annual Easter parades, don't you think? I mean, c'mon. They seem to get more elaborate every year, too - especially in that "they knew not what they did" passive aggressive way martyrs have of damning everybody else to a figurative hell, the old "when did you stop beating your wife" leading lynchpin of Christianity always dangling in your face, while you're left with, "That wasn't even Christ, you fuckers."
Or is it just Christian culture asserting itself in the face of the Islamic Menace? You know, sort of a home front resistance movement, as the faithful do their bit in the War on Terror. Still, okay okay, we get it. Christ was killed. Over and over and over. By persons in the wrong place at the wrong time. No wait, the right place at the wrong time. And you're just... reminding us year after year after year - with a Statutory Holiday and Holiest of Holy parades in communities all across the country.
Not that Jesus wouldn't be down with it, I guess. At least, if you can believe Paul, otherwise known as, "Shifty the Chronicler". Because that's the latest, isn't it. That this whole charade/parade/crusade is all about Paul and what he wanted everybody to believe forever and ever, Amen.
Tsk, tsk. As Jesus would have said if Paul had thought of it, "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we choose to deceive".
I wonder if the same guys who went door-to-door selling sub-prime mortgages in the United States are the same guys who go door-to-door in Ontario claiming to be from the gas company and demanding to see your bill so they can give you your rebate.
It's hard to believe Ontario elected Mike Harris twice. But then I look at Stephen Harper and his New Conservative cabinet and I realize Mikey's worst henchmen were elected a whole level of treasury looting higher.
Anyway, seeing Shantytown, USA, made me wonder - how come the United States looks more like Mexico and less like Canada in these NAFTA days, and if we could have a look down the road to our own future, will we be on our knees in gratitude to a rigid unmoving government bureacracy and a stolid parsimonious banking system?
Coincidentally to a story in today's Toronto Star about three Canadian soldiers kicking a homeless man to death in a public park, I'd been thinking about the erosion of our civil liberties over the past few years, as well as the anti-social encroachment of private property into public space at a time of increasingly aggressive government attempts to criminalize homelessness, the end of the poverty rainbow.
But the article threw me enough off course that I ended up thinking about how vociferous our governments have been in insisting we hail Canadian soldiers as heroes, whether it's renaming highways, wearing red on Fridays, or driving around with yellow ribbons tied to SUV antennae, in what has been an orchestrated top down attack on dissenters against the war.
Government bullying, in other words.
Well, I guess it should come as no surprise when the two converge, the soldiers' belief in the government's p.r. campaign that they are heroes, and those same thugs' belief in the government's p.r. campaign that people forced to occupy public space, because they have no private property, have no human rights. Sure, alcohol was a factor in the murder, but so, too, was the belief that they had a right, as Canadian soldiers, to claim public space as their own by virtue of the fact that they had a home in the army and the guy they kicked to death, didn't.
In fact, he had nowhere to go to get away from his killers, did he - another factor in the murder.
Because, no offence to anybody in particular, but I remember as a kid steering pretty clear of cadets (we lived near the Armoury). It was considered a wise thing to do, to put some distance between yourself and boys who wanted to join the army - because their reasons for doing so had everything to do with one day being able to shoot people and not a whole lot else.
So, being smarter in those days about who you had to keep your eye on, no matter what your government might tell you, if you were a little girl, out and about, alone, enjoying public space, and you saw a cadet or a group of cadets headed your way, you didn't stick around to find out if they wanted to play. You assumed they were trouble and you gave up the public space to them for the safety of home.
Anyway, I'm not making that up. I remember being a kid and I remember who wanted to be what when he grew up and I doubt a lot of that has changed, quite frankly. Some boys are trouble and, sure, the army's a good place for them - as long as they aren't going around thinking they're heroes for being in it, which, thanks to our governments, many of them now do.
Whoever is asking for these public apologies by politicians, please stop. Thank you.
That's it. Jim Flaherty must never win another election as long as I live. And to make sure he doesn't, I suggest a Referendum be held to take away the voting rights of the unspeakably stupid citizens of Whitby-Oshawa. Who's with me? Everybody who resides in Ontario, with the exception of Whitby-Oshawa? Good. Oh - the unspeakably stupid citizens of Whitby-Oshawa are with us on this, too, having come to terms with their unspeakable stupidity? Even better.
Don't governments routinely ensure that their scandals are put before the courts in order that they will be off limits as to further development by the opposition (and media, back in the olden days when media informed the public on government activities)?
So why isn't the same true of the land under dispute in Indian land claims currently before the courts?
Ah, those engineering students. This time, it's a controversy at Ottawa U, where "Oral Otis", the engineering students' newsletter, published a sex advice column that contained some misogynistic material. Oh, and more (ahem) obviously, material that mocked the disabled. Here is the editor-in-chief's apology: That'sRight,I'mALittleShitWithoutTheDisturber
I'm no expert on insincere apologies, but that one reminds me of when I'd ask one of my kids to apologize to another one for something or other and they'd quite willingly run up to the offended party and shout, "Sooooorrrryyy!" in her (occasionally, his) face.
As every mother knows, 3rd party demanded apologies are for suckers.
Still, I'd like to see the material because my guess is, it just wasn't funny enough to get away with the misogyny. Engineering students aren't exactly smart with the humour, if my experience hanging around with engineering students at U. of T. for the few minutes I was trapped in a shopping cart waiting my turn to be thrown into a shower in a men's residence, fully clothed in a Calvin Klein suit, is any indication.
I wasn't even a student at the time and was simply walking through the campus on my way home from work, having forgotten about orientation week, when I was set upon by drunken dufii sporting purple arms, "A girl! Get her!" When I realized what was happening, I played possum, so terrified/powerless was I in the situation (they were a lynch mob in number and drunk enough to be irrevocably stupid).
So, I dunno, Zach, my little man. Tragedy + time = comedy. I'd say engineering students in Canada have a few more decades to go before anybody's going to find violence against women jokes in your newsletters very funny.
By the way, here's Zach's original reaction to the complaint:
Er,IronyIsMyLetterToTheFulcrum,Too
I'm with RevRend Wright, 'cause a Wright ain't a wrong. Besides, maybe he meant it like, "GawdDAMN America!" Whatever. Even if he meant, "Gawd damn America" - so what? It's not like he said, "Fuck U, America".
Say, everybody - Obama's Grandmother sounds like a... Gramma, eh? Racist old biddy. He should make her be his running mate now. "Okay Obama, but I want a separate microphone, you understand me, boy?" "Word, Gramma Racist. I licked them all, anyway."
But seriously, a few years back, my ex and I were invited to dinner at his co-worker's home. Now, this guy was the white man half of an interracial couple and not so much my ex's co-worker as his boss, so, naturally, all the way there we joked about NOT saying the WRONG thing (ala Faulty Towers in the episode with the German guests, "Whatever you do - don't mention the War!"). So, no talk of checkers, or penguins, or Truman Capote's infamous Black & White Ball. (That would be me. I get EXTRA pretentious when I'm nervous.)
Oh, and definitely no Al Jolson routines, "Swaaaaanee, how I luv ya, how I luv ya, myyyyyy dear ol' Swaneeeee."
Anyway, we're sitting there having an ordinary interracial couple dinner (I guess, it was my only one), a couple of WASP guests so politically correct we actually look alike, my ex and I, and all of a sudden Grampa Fred (of the white half of the family), who was sitting at the head of the dinner table, fixes a steely gaze on my ex and asks, "Have you ever been to Florida?" So my ex, an honest enough chap, replies falsely to avoid any and all possible complications - or conversation, as you and I might say, "Why... no." To which Grampa Fred nods sternly, "Good. It's black with n*ggers, you know."
Well, apparently this wasn't entirely unexpected because, although we were both like, "GULP", and not even making eye contact with our own retinae, the host and hostess just tsk tsked and said, "Now, Grampa Fred. We talked about this before, remember? You've never even been to Florida."
Personally, I think calling for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics - now - if you're a person of any political stature who didn't start calling for a boycott of China somewhere around the Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989, is a lot like, well, nothing. Really. It's so not anything I can't even come up with an appropriate simile. That's how like nothing it is.
Remember, Lickspittles - We the People despise you for saying, "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear".
Still, "Free Mark Steyn!"
And by scarecrow, I mean the straw man argument put up by the Right that the Left excuses Cuba because it comes off better in terms of human rights than most other notorious dictatorships.
Hay - some straw man arguments just aren't that bad, I guess. Kind of like Cuba (she said from her perch in the Right's Cuba North).
But say, here's a kneejerk litmus test for you, Rightwingers: Would you rather be a new mother in Cuba? Or a new mother in Gaza?
Apparently, Canadian politicians have sex with prostitutes, too. I know, hard to believe.
Sorry, I can't be bothered linking to the article. Rest assured, though, that the escort agency owner mentioned (not by name) said his girls are classy.
Twice.
Gee, that must make for quite a contrast when they're blowing our politicians, eh?
The BBC visits the Third World:
ShantyTown-USA
Commenter #1 makes the connection:
ThanksToSpitzer
Gawd bless America.
Sooey Says the next leader of the Liberal Party of Canada MUST BE A WOMAN. So either switch genders or move over for Martha Hall Findlay.
P.S. NO SWITCHING GENDERS!!!!
Well, the trial of the century is coming up, Canada. March 25th. I don't have the address, perhaps some kind commenter can supply it for me.
FreeMarkSteynWebsite
Little fascist Mark Steyn, backed by Macleans, backed by Rogers, backed by government funding, not necessarily in that order, goes up against Big Brother, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, thanks to a complaint against Mr. Steyn's alleged incendiary scribblings about the Islamic Menace.
The complaint was made by the Islamic Menace, as personified by some Osgoode Law School students in Toronto.
I hope Mark Steyn wins. Not just for free speech porpoises and to prevent his martyrdom at the hands of the State (the one he'd like to enslave western women to in mandatory childbirth, you know, in order to up our demographic which he fears is at risk of being swamped - you guessed it - by the Islamic Menace) but also because, if he doesn't, then the Terrorists! will have won.
And by Terrorists! I mean the Islamic Menace, of course, the one Mark Steyn has been telling us, ever since 9/11, is after our Freedoms (and not via the Patriot Act or Homeland Security, either, but by breeding AND Sharia Law, which Liberal Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, managed to squash like a bug a while back, along with some pretty whacked out Jewish and Christian laws, too).
Heheh - it was pretty hilarious, actually. Citizens, by and large, had no idea this misognynistic b.s. was going on, so it was a bit of a big ol', "Hey thanks, Islamic Menace, we had no idea. Now stfu, stop listening to Imams, and make like it's Canada in the new millennium. That's NOT what we meant by Judeo/Christian culture."
I dunno, Mark Steyn. Maybe vote Liberal next go 'round.
Oh wait... do Libertarians vote?
P.S. For those who may not be aware of what the CHRC does and does not do, it processes complaints by every Tom, Dick and Hamid who have been offended by the speech of others. Unless you're a woman offended by the virulent misogyny inherent in the mainstream religions in this country, virulent misogyny which is preached far and wide, unabated, including in the education and healthcare systems of Ontario, which are funded with our tax dollars by our very own government, led by the aforementioned Liberal Premier, Dalton McGuinty.
Oh dear. It just dawned on me why men on the Right hate Feminists so much. You know how they always take credit as white Christians for western civilization? Well, I guess they're expecting us to say "Thank you, Sir" and not "Please just shut the fuck up, you moronic idiot".
Here's another lifted comment (in its entirety) from smalldeadanimals. I believe it reveals, quite hilariously, the persecuted mindset of the average New Conservative on the Internet:
TC Rosedale hase very, very, very little "Rosedale" to it at all. Furthermore, there aren't all that many Lib/NDP in Rosedale - it's a conservative stronghold full of very good people with VERY conservative ideas. A few Joe Clarkites (John Tory, come on down) and some idiot media types and mentally deficient heirs. Unfortunately the riding is designed (along with the rest of the midtown Toronto ridings) to be dominated by the slums of St. Jamestown/Jarvis/Regnt Park as well as Boystown and Cabbagetown. Liberals have done very well to ensure that the core conservative constituency in Toronto is split up amongst a number of ridings, with no ridings having any actual identity or commonality of interests. Very nice gerrymandering to perpetuate the lie of "Liberal Toronto" so well that even conservatives believe it.
Posted by: Hey at March 17, 2008 6:54 PM
Heheh, yeah: "Damn Gubmint!"
Is the Lickspittle who snaps to heel, salutes the Establishment, and recites his Pledge of Obediance to the State with, "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear".
We, the People, despise you.
StageleftReportsInOnBootLickingToadyCanadiansOnTheRight
Just kidding. I can't really remember David Lewis. But remember that great line he came up with about corporate welfare bums? Bear Stearns and the Federal Reserve bailout of its sorry ass put me in mind of it today.
Although, Americans don't really have welfare as such, do they. Nevermind, then.
My downtown apartment building has become a campground for a couple of homeless people. So my friend, who lives in the basement, cleaned out the nest area they'd made under the stairs.
It reeked, an animal smell, with a chaser of eau de booze.
Anyway, she felt kind of bad about it, as did I. We both used to live in the suburbs (me Ottawa, her Guelph) where we'd have thought such a thing was cruel (what's the harm? we'd have said) but now that we live downtown where homeless people actually are (and looking for a place to spend the night) we're less inclined to think it's okay.
A friend in my suburban moms-at-home bookclub used to joke at our meetings, "Okay, ladies - I've got another bourgeoise problem I need solved." This doesn't feel like that, though, it feels more like hard honestly about where I actually DO draw my tolerance line.
Which turns out to be in a surprisingly literal place.
This is a direct quote from a comment I read this morning over at smalldeadanimals. It's one of my favourite comments, that I read and hear at least once per day and have for my entire lifetime. Then I look at our elected representatives and all the heads of all the corporations and every boss I've ever had and the owners of everything and all the leading men in all the Hollywood movies and all the media people and government bureaucrats and mafioso and police officers and even TVO panelists - and wonder - where does this commenter live?:
The thing that I find amazing that is going on and on, and on and on, is that everybody but White Christian Males can say anything about anybody, in no uncertain terms, and it's cool.
I try it and I'm a racist, homophobic, sexist Islamophobe, to name a few of the titles I'd have.
Very strange brew. Unhealthy for people like me for sure.
Gee, once Hillary is out of the picture, I guess it'll just be a matter of minutes before racism catches back up to sexism and the twin isms run neck-in-neck straight into the Presidential election - thanks to Michelle Obama. Man, is it my imagination, or is that woman getting blacker the closer L'il Obama gets to winning the nomination? I mean, if the media doesn't catch her in a black power salute soon, it's gonna have to photoshop her doing one.
Mark Steyn on Obama sleeping thru RevRend Wright's sermons, like a, like a, like a - WHITE MAN!!:
OneMoreTime-BlackPeople+Power=Bad
It seems hard to believe you could spend 20 minutes in this pastor's company, never mind 20 years (as the Obamas have), without figuring he's a race-baiting loon.
Maybe it's like living in a country surrounded by Rightwing race-baiting loons in the media and he learned to block most of it out to survive? Or maybe we're all like the frog in the pot? I dunno. Let's check out the comments at Kate's place, as you suggest she's the voice of reason here:
Kate's right about Obama's who-ya-gonna-believe-me-or-your-lyin'-eyes routine.
WeSayThisStuffForFree,Too!
Here's my favourite comment (no irony intended by the capital "C" Christian commenter, of course):
Why do they call places where this political shouting takes place all day long a church?
Tax break.
Amen, you otherwise complete freakin' moron.
I watched "Eastern Promises" last night. It was absorbing, in a made-for-tv movie-of-the-week kind of way, with plot holes as big as a President's ego, and a lot of sexploitation.
But I have a bias against anything to do with David Cronenberg because years ago I was at a party and people were talking about "Dead Ringers" and the conversation became quite pretentious and filmy in that way movie connoisseur conversations do, and some drunken hosebeast of a reveller, searching for the last cold beer in the fridge (I always left the warm stuff for the boys - they'll drink anything) piped up, "I think David Cronenberg is just a misogynist!"
I stand by that opinion, too.
But I think a lot of Hollywood movies are misogynistic, probably because most Hollywood writers and directors are misogynists. So it'd be a scant selection for your viewing pleasure if I was in charge of what you could and could not see, that's for sure. Believe me, as a Feminist, watching almost any Hollywood production with my kids drives me clear and clean out of my mind because the sexism in America is so ingrained, so pervasive, so rampant - that virtually every movie is based on women being there for the pleasure of men.
As a Feminist, I'm pretty much sick of it.
Indeed, according to Hollywood, if it weren't for just a handful of good men who speak in monosyllables (because women, not men, find that so attractive in a partner), women would be enslaved by the evil laughing closet-cases who comprise most of mankind, to be raped over and over and over, before being murdered at their (and your?) further viewing pleasure, their naked corpses given one last going over by a lingering camera close-up.
Ah, women in the movies. Even their sexuality isn't enough to save them in the end.
Well, I'm not buying it. The emperor ain't wearin' any clothes, as far as I'm concerned. It's all just misogyny with a thick coating of homo-eroticism - what I'm seeing up there on the big screen - and from here on in I'm boycotting the whole shebang - or shegangbang, as so often is the case in Hollywoodland.
You know, I'd put the Olympics on a par with the UN - good in theory, requiring a helluva lot of scrutiny in practice. Still, the International Olympic Committee has to be in a league of corruption even beyond the worst United Nations secretariat.
So why is the media asking Jacques Rogge his opinion regarding Tibetan unrest in defiance of Chinese oppression? I mean, it's not like he's unbiased. Cripes, the IOC has more in common with the communist dictators of China than Russian figure skating judges had with characters straight out of Animal Farm.
And excuse me for playing media watchdog, but in my opinion, interviewing him at all lends a legitimacy to his opinions that would otherwise not exist. I don't care to hear what Jacques Rogge thinks of what is going on in Tibet right now because his opinion is going to be as biased as it is irrelevant.
Say, have you started to notice that the further we get from 9/11, the lamer all those conspiracy theories seem as opposed to the truth? I mean, what's up with that, eh? Is conspiracy theorizing a product of these slacker times in the west or what? Geez Louise. I'm starting to wonder if maybe Bush Inc. came up with a few of those howlers, myself.
Whoa, somebody needs to be told that the wild west is just p.r.
ThenDidHeMakeAnAHRCComplaintForHavingToScaleTheFence?
Check out these comments - straight out of "Jesus Camp". The entry is about Feminist reaction on the Internet to Bill C-484, by the way - a supposed crime bill that is in reality a backdoor attempt to recriminalize abortion:
NewConservativeCrusaders
My favourite is the one that includes, in all caps and with a gratuitous apostrophe for good measure: "EXECUTE ALL MURDERER'S". And what do these people, Ken Epp included, consider abortion? That's right, ladies - murder.
So yeah, I don't see a leap to the conclusion that Bill C-484 is all about recriminalizing abortion. Do you see a leap to that conclusion?
Full disclosure: I didn't actually click on any of the links:
EzraDigsDeeper
Well, I've decided to give up on protesting the War in Afghanistan and just give it up that it's costing us a bundle. Our hard earned working family tax dollars might just as well be handed over to military contractors as the New Conservative Government of Canada, but such is life. It'll always be something and with New Conservatives it'll always be something ideologically driven, so - what are you going to do.
Besides, if throwing money at the problem of Afghanistan works, maybe we can try it here some day, too, and solve our problem of poverty - particularly in Vancouver's downtown eastside. I mean, it'd be a shame to have to boycott your own country's Olympics because they're only different in degree to Beijing's.
As with the soldiers in Afghanistan, they all want to be there or they wouldn't have signed up. No one's got a gun to anyone's head over on this side of the world. And they're all heroes because that really helps justify the expense of the whole operation, I've noticed.
So give it up for the War in Afghanistan, Canada. If we can make it there, we can make it anywhere. Even here.
You know, it's occurred to me that maybe Republicans want Hillary to win the Democratic nomination because it won't look so obvious to the rest of the world that they rig elections when McCain wins the Presidency. I mean, with Obama, it would be like a slap in the face, "Wake up, Stupids! We rig elections!" because EVERYBODY and Oprah wants Obama to win and the whole world knows it.
Here's Mark Steyn playing RevRend Charles McVety (Stephen Harper's second in command behind Thomas Flanagan, unless he's waddled into first place thanks to Cadscam) and spinning the facts as he so often does, to suit his supposedly Libertarian views (well, for men, anyway - women he'd prefer have no autonomy over their own bodies and be reduced to the status of childbirth slaves of the Nanny State - a real one, not just the one he pretends we have now) :
YoungPeopleWHATTING?!
Okay, Steyn. You may not like TAX BREAKS (not government funding - of the kind Macleans enjoys, anyway) that the Canadian film and television industry gets from OUR government, but understand (at least) that they help get movies and programs made - here - to the benefit of OUR economy. Still, since your argument is really one of censorship (because you focus in it only on certain films with provocative titles) you really should just shut the fuck up until your battle with the CHRC that stands you accused of hate speech, essentially, against a visibly identifiable minority - is over.
Here's hoping you get off and don't become a martyr to free speech, too, because (from my perspective, anyway) you already seem kind of threatening to democracy and ACTUAL freedom, being pretty much a mouthpiece for the Rightwing Establishment that holds all the actual power in the world and which has been systematically stripping citizens here of their civil rights - as you are.
So yeah - boycott Macleans, Feminists. It doesn't deserve your hardearned, working family income because it just hands it over, in addition to the hardearned, working family tax dollars they already receive from YOUR government, to men who would deny women their human rights while they mouthpiece for the Republican government of the United States of America and its Little Big Brother up here in Canada - which is apparently being run behind the scenes by Gawd-boyz like RevRend Charles McVety.
You know, it's funny, but I don't necessarily support government funding for the arts, either. Or didn't. Until Mark Steyn poked his head out from his ass. Now I'm 100% behind tax breaks for the movies. ESPECIALLY ones with names like "Young People Fucking".
Tsk, tsk, Mark Steyn: Live in a glass house and throw stones much?
Hm. So does Stephen Harper slapping a libel chill lawsuit on Stephane Dion mean that the New Conservatives can now do a "No comment, it's before the courts" claim on the scandal and that's it?
So, how come he's not suing the author of the book if he didn't know about two party officials going to visit Chuck Cadman on his deathbed to bribe him with a $1,000,000 life insurance policy for his family if he would vote to bring down the government?
Because the author of the book quotes him as sounding pretty much in the loop on that highly illegal activity. Of course, suing Stephane Dion instead means the scandal is out of the way for a good long while, whereas suing the author, well, he sounds pretty guilty to me on that tape.
NOT that I'm sayin' he IS guilty. I'm just sayin' he SOUNDS guilty.
See, girls? This is why you don't want to get married. It's nothing but work - even according to its advocates, the Rightwing Loons. If you want kids, meet some guy, have sex, get pregnant. But do not get married or forget about that career because your husband will become your career. Even Dr. Laura admits it:
HeCheatsOnYouBecauseYouMarriedHim,Stupid
"When the wife does not focus in on the needs and the feelings, sexually, personally, to make him feel like a man, to make him feel like a success, to make him feel like her hero, he's very susceptible to the charm of some other woman making him feel what he needs. And these days, women don't spend a lot of time thinking about how they can give their men what they need."
Heheh - I guess Dr. Laura hasn't been a prostitute in a few years, because, well, I don't think prostitutes these days waste a lot of time thinking about what he needs, either. Afterall, time is money, Dr. Laura.
Now here's David Frum, idiot-at-large, from an article I'm not even going to link to, it's so loaded with "when did you stop beating your wife" leading questions and whining attacks on human rights in the usual way of Rightwing Loons that starts and ends with women as subservient to Gawd's will as interpreted by Rightwing Loons. But just so you know I'm not exaggerating, here's a line from the piece:
As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish from human intelligence, we will have to wonder: Can a machine become a "person"?
Sigh. Okay, ladies. So now we're competing with Gawd, the unborn, and computers for our human rights. Fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy ride.
You know, if young women went after careers instead of marriage and children, they could break through that glass ceiling in a generation, I bet. If it were up to me, that would be the Feminist message for 2008 and beyond. I mean, why are we pretending that anything will change for women, employment-wise, if they continue to marry and have children? It won't. The deck is too stacked against us by our legislators. Go after careers, Grrrls.
Here's a question for all you SooeySays readers out there across the Globe, would we be as annoyed with Eliot Spitzer if he didn't look like a cross between something weird and something even weirder?
No. No we would not. And you know it. But that's just an extra price weird-looking people should have to pay. Afterall, it's not society's fault they're weird-looking.
I guess the idea that has been seized upon by our current crop of legislators is that women should now have to compete with Gawd for their rights. I mean, Feminists made a fair degree of headway with men, so now we're going to have to take on Gawd as he speaks through men - men who have legislative power.
Hm... I dunno, ladies. Gawd is all powerful. This could be a tricky one. In the meantime, I don't think anybody should be getting a free pass here, if we can help it, and I notice Premier Dalton McGuinty has been getting one for quite a while.
Here's the thing. Healthcare and education are both under his watch so I'm not sure why we aren't holding his feet to the fire regarding the entirely unacceptable status quo in terms of women's real and actual rights in this province. With the amalgamation of cities under Mike Harris, many community hospitals are controlled by Catholic administrative boards - as are many community schools - and where Catholic administrators go, a reduction in women's abortion rights is sure to follow.
And it's one thing to have the right, it's quite another to have access to it. That's where Premier McGuinty comes in - or should.
Now without sounding too Protestant, I have to say that the Catholic Church is probably the most discriminatory institution on the planet in terms of women's rights. And recently the Archbishops have been flexing their political muscle to tell politicians that if they don't speak out against abortion rights for women, they won't get their cracker at communion on Sunday.
Funny, but I haven't heard any politicians telling the Archbishops to stick it where the sun don't shine. That's because they're more afraid of the Archbishops on account of they're further up the line to the Pope and the Pope speaks directly to Gawd - than they are of Feminists.
We need to change that, ladies.
Now, I dunno about you, but I have no idea how to compete with Gawd for my rights, so I think this is going to be a tough one. It might even involved pins and dolls and Harry Potter. However, one look at Dalton McGuinty tells me that guy wouldn't have much luck out there in the real world and he probably wants to stay on as Premier for a while.
He's the weak link.
So, I say we give him a really rough ride until he stands up for our rights because he's more afraid of us than he is of Gawd.
In the meantime - "Hey Gawd! Your mother wears army boots!"
Antonia Zerbisias tackles the issue of pay equity in her latest column WhyCan'tAWomanBePaidLikeAMan?
I often think about this issue because something tells me (I call it: reality) that it's never going to play out fairly. That's because there is a prevailing societal myth that men are there for women, that a woman can always find a man to look after her, even if that means prostitution, but a man is ultimately on his own - so he needs more money than she does.
The myth is constantly propagated, too - that a woman can always hook up with a man and then he'll pay her way. Uh... unless she's a prostitute and he's a pimp, in which case she'll pay him to pay her way.
So women, because their supposed vulnerability is also their saving grace, are considered to not need money as much as they need men, who are assumed to be their protectors.
And since the added assumption is that women need men to protect them from other men, I can't see us climbing out of this tidy set of assumptions box any time soon. I mean, you don't see many homeless women hanging around on street corners panhandling, but you don't see many male prostitutes working the same corners, either. So, since even homeless women (streetwalkers) work harder than homeless men (panhandlers) - but still fork over most of their earning to a pimp for protection against other men, I think prostitution vs panhandling is where we need to start with pay equity.
I'm a Hillary supporter (not in real life - I'm Canadian, afterall - I hope... say, has anybody checked today to see if Stephen Harper has sold us to the United States - wholesale?) just because she's a woman and Feminist enough for my pretend vote, so I'm not sure I get this whole outcry about black and politically correct white Americans supporting Obama just because he's black. It's not like it's the inverse of NOT supporting him because he's black. Like, you know, how those normally sexist Hispanics don't support him but support Hillary. I mean, c'mon. And even the claim that he doesn't have political experience is pretty silly, since the fact is that he's the unstoppable frontrunner in a Presidential race - even though he came pretty much out of nowhere. So he spent his time preparing to be President and not bothering with the nitty gritty? Doesn't that just make him a better political strategist? Or is that a bad thing in a political leader all of a sudden. BECAUSE HE'S BLACK!!!
I guess the shit will really hit the victim fan if it turns out Spitzer has HIV, eh? How come nobody's asked that question yet, anyway? Because he's a Governor who engages in unsafe sex practices with prostitutes?
I just had two Jehovah Witnesses come to the office and you know what? They're actually less proselytizing than is our New Conservative Government of Canada.
It's true. They didn't try to take away my rights or anything. Just handed me a piece of paper with a picture of Jesus on it and told me to have a nice day.
Thanks, Jehovah Witnesses. I believe I will.
I just realized something. You read all the time about young women being attracted to older men, that it's some sort of natural, biological reality and not a big bloated myth propagated by older men.
But I was a younger woman once and I can recall, very clearly, being repelled, sickened, COMPLETELY FREAKED OUT, by the idea of sex with a middle-aged man. And when a middle-aged man paid any attention to me in that come-hither-pretty-girlie way, it made me feel icky. Really icky. Skin crawlingly icky.
Middle-aged men who come on to young women are considered by most young women to be grossly perverted, unless the young women are prostitutes, of course. Then they're just considered, I guess (?), part of the job. It's a fact. An real fact that has been glossed over in favour of a big bloated myth that women are attracted to older men.
There. Another earth shattering reality check brought to you by SooeySays. You're welcome.
Personally, I think Eliot (the Idiot) Spitzer wanted to get caught. I mean, it's just not enough to do it anymore, you've got to get caught doing it. And what better way to rebel and totally stick it to "da man" when YOU "da man" and you get caught spending thousands of dollars on sexcorts after a career spent prosecuting prostitutes.
Unless he didn't know "escorts" are prostitutes. It IS kind of a misrepresentation. I mean, it fooled me once upon a time. I was like, "Wow, $1,000/hour just to accompany a single gentleman to a classy function?! Let me get my lipstick!"
It happened more'n once, too.
But I guess "Kristen" is making it big in MySpace. Cripes, how come prostitutes get all the breaks? It's only been a week and already it'd be a step back for her to go on American Idol. I wonder if she could combine prostitution with singing and, I dunno, join the circus? "Come see "Kristen" - the incredible singing prostitute! She can jazz'm and jizz'm - at the same time!"
Okay, I'll stop now.
Anyway, here's Sooey's prediction for next year's most hyped reality show: "Eliot and Kristen, The Simpleton Life".
I guess our New Conservative government's policy of dividing and conquering extends to Aboriginal women now, too:
UnrepentantOldHippieViaStageleft
(This entry has been edited because my webmaster called me at home last night and said that Mark Steyn's lawyer had subpoena'd me. He was lying, of course, because HE'S a lying lie-faced liar! But I changed it anyway because "stupid" works better for Steyn these days.)
Just kidding. NOT. Here's a real Catch-22 piece by Mark Steyn speaking directly (if unwittingly) to this post: StephenHarper'sCreepyNewCountry:
IfItWeren'tForFeminists,WeWouldn'tNeedMisogyny
But don't bother reading it because it's really, really, really stupid.
See, what Mark Steyn forgets is that it's guys like him (yes, the prototype repulsive 50s sitcom Patriarch) who keep western Feminists so busy trying to retain the gains they've made for women, here, that they have less time to sound the alarm bell for women at greater risk of harm due to Patriarchy in other parts of the world.
It would help, just an itsybitsyteenweeny yellowpolkadotbikini bit, if the Big Ol' Male Chauvinist Pig would concede, at least, that Feminism is the signature political movement of western civilization and is exactly what differentiates us from the animals, the animals being guys worse than him, even - like the Taliban.
Yeah, I know - when Big Ol' Male Chauvinist Pigs fly.
But just for a brief refresher for those who haven't followed very closely the writings of Mr. Crazy I Tells Ya, when the Taliban was busy blowing up statues in Afghanistan and pundits like Hisself and his dumber twin, David (Never Lets Up, Even For Lent) Warren, were lamenting the loss of historical relics, western Feminists had long since been underburkacover in Afghanistan to alert the world about the treatment women were receiving at the hands of the Taliban.
Yes, indeed. Let the record show, Your Honour, that Afghanistan's treatment of women was old news to western Feminists by the time Steyn/Warren were boohooing about the blowed up statues and whatever will we do now and why can't the Taliban be more like a western man.
That's a fact that doesn't jive well with Sir FullO'Shit - but it's still a fact. Meanwhile, the War on Terror and the War on Afghanistan - Ol'PsychoNuts' preferred way of supporting women's rights across the world (because the SquirrelBrain certainly doesn't support them here, preferring western women strapped to gurneys in forced childbirth as mandated by the State or "manning" FreeMarkSteyn websites) has resulted in worse living conditions for women than ever conceived of under either Saddam Hussein OR the Taliban. And that's not counting all the women who are dead - thanks to western freedom fighters - who wouldn't be dead otherwise.
But, of course, dead women aren't even up there in priority with the unborn - HERE - so there's no point in expecting Misogynists to care much about dead women in Afghanistan. Which is STILL not to say that they don't care more about dead women in Afghanistan than they do about live women here, live women here being more likely to be Feminists.
So yeah, rage against the Feminist machine, Dude. Because none of what's going on in the world is thanks to our Gawd-lurvin', Feminist-hatin', leaders - HERE - in the west, where FEMINISM IS THE SIGNATURE POLITICAL MOVEMENT OF OUR CIVILIZATION AND THAT WHICH DIFFERENTIATES US FROM THE ANIMALS, YOU STUPID, STUPID, STUPID PUNDIT!
Oh, and what about the real "war on women" you ask in the title of your piece, you Fatuous Gob? I dunno. Since you and yours are the ones waging it, why don't you stop?
Am I the only one who figures politicians and prostitutes go together like peanut butter and bananas? Here's Ms. Zerb's take on it:
UnsafeSex?!In2008?!
But seriously, my guess is the wife just doesn't have very good taste in men. She's married to a politician, afterall. It takes a special kind of old-fashioned dame (or lesbian, I guess) to put up with a politician who is told, day in and day out, by staffers who double as groupies, that he's terrific (and all male politicians are told that day in and day out by their staffers - no matter how repulsive they actually are).
It's why women still don't have equality with men as bequeathed by a benevolent government. Male politicians - who have always had all the power in this country and south of the border and could make abortion rights, at the very least, a done deal, legally - would rather have unsafe anal sex with young prostitutes so nobody ends up with an unwanted pregnancy - than follow through on some shrill diatribe by the Feminist Ball & Chain Brigade back at the office.
Right guys? Oh, and the prices? Whoa. That's a man with a big wallet, eh? Or public purse, anyway. Just ask Mike Harris, the Taxfighter (or Jim Flaherty, his Family Values treasurer), who dated plenty while he was Premier and won back to back majority governments, so impressed were the voters of Ontario.
Comin' through, workin' the room:
EzraPDFsCadmanBook
Mr. Levant was one of many pundits online to cast doubt on the allegation. He said he posted the book in that context.
Oh. THAT context. Oh, well, then. I thought it was the more free dirty tricks for a lyin' bribin' New Conservative Government of Canada context. My bad.
Er, we'll assume free, anyway...
Oh wait - did you scan it yourself? Or did your... assistant/Mom scan it? Ooh - OR did it come to you pre-scanned with instructions from a couple of, well, you know - "officials"? (And we know, we know, if it did - Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, knew nothing about it - even if he did.)
I dunno, Lynn Crosbie, but, sadly, I can't see how Governments that both sanction torture and seek to deny women human rights, have any real moral authority when it comes to pornography:
GeorgeClooneyOnEatingLeftovers
I dunno (again). Do we still have Occupational Health and Safety laws or have they gone the way of decency in the name of Gawd, too?
Here's something very telling, and typical, about the current crop of Freedom of Speech... Disadvocates (?) on the Internet. Marc Weisblott, a groovy hipster who once offered to set me up with a blog (I was too shy), wrote a piece in EyeWeekly about Kathy Shaidle EyeWeakly,We'reInternet, who is someone I link to for... hellry (?) IsSheReallyFiveFeet?. In turn, the piece is linked to by Warren Kinsella ThisMeansWar,ThatMeansWar,EVERTHINGMEANSWAR!, who ends his entry about how NOT a sparring partner of Ms. Shaidle he is, with this:
[And, while we are on the topic, how come I could find this vile stuff so quickly - and Mark couldn't ?]
That's what I mean by insidious speech. And I don't know if it's deliberate or just mindless but here's Marc with the between-the-lines (it's where all the best reading is done, isn't it) smackdown in Mr. Kinsella's new Comments section (in which, for some insane reason, people actually post comments):
Where did you get the idea that I couldn't find it?
Marc W.
Sometimes, just when you've given up hope of the asylum being taken over by the patients, along comes Marc Weisblott.
Here in Ottawa, they don't bother plowing the sidewalks anymore. It's not even a subtle message, the one from our government telling pedestrians that we don't count. I dunno. Maybe we should stop paying taxes?
It's all cars, cars, cars. Everything is about cars. And the next time some asshat waddles down memory lane by way of complaining about "kids today", tell s/he to go play in the traffic. Because that's why kids and dogs can't run free, really, because they'd be run over in a matter of seconds by an SUV.
And it wouldn't even be the driver's fault because s/he can't really see anything that isn't a good five feet off the ground. Nevermind backing up. Cripes, I cross right on over to the other side of town when somebody is backing up in one of those things. And I'm 5'5".
Call me crazy, but it appears to me that our New Conservative government and its pundits in the Media are waging war against Feminism. Notice how the War on Afghanistan is being sold to Canadians as "for women in Afghanistan" and Bill C-484 is being sold to Canadians as "for women in Canada"?
I have. And I think it's pretty creepy. You know, because they're telling great big whopping lies to the electorate about the reasons for their actions.
What's even creepier is when New Conservative pundits in the Media swarm the Press Releases, wagging bony old fingers at Feminists for not going along with the storyline, screeching at their readers: "The New Conservative government cares about women! Feminists don't care about women! They want women in Afghanistan to suffer and men who kill pregnant women to get off scott free! We and our exalted leaders care about women! Feminists don't care about women!"
Gawd. Say, you know what is true? Islamic Terrorists and Christian Fundamentalists both hate Feminists.
Oh, and the Media in this country sucks.
Okay, Feminists. I think we have ourselves a live one here. If you haven't cancelled your subscription to a CanWest newspaper, please do it today:
ButWeWantToDebateAbortion!
Look, fellas. This isn't about debate or free speech or having your say. This is about Feminists taking a stand against those who would deny us our legal right to a publicly funded abortion. The right to abortion services isn't up for debate, especially in the Mainstream Media.
Remember?
You don't even cover a woman's legal right to obtain a publicly funded abortion when Members of Parliament are attempting to take it away - by recriminalizing it through such backdoor Bills as Bill C-484.
Remember?
And you call yourselves the Mainstream Media. Tsk, tsk.
By the way, I finally saw "Jesus Camp" yesterday. I advise everyone to rent it and then read a CanWest editorial. See if you can spot the difference between American Fundamentalist Christians on the Right and the men who write CanWest editorials.
I don't know how to fight the Monolithic Mainstream Media (hey, MMM, the upside down of WWW) in this country, almost all of it owned, run, and editorialized by men, but I do know one thing - nobody who believes in women's equality with men should be paying for a subscription to a CanWest newspaper. It's that simple.
Kudos to Kelly Holloway, president of York University's graduate students' association. You've left the big boys sputtering in their editorial pages because you did what Feminists need to do from here on in: "Never retract, never explain, never apologize; get things done and let them howl."
As long as this is Canada, abortion rights for women are not up for debate. Just keep your eye on those New Conservatives, because, if they have their way, we won't be Canada much longer.
I think male legislators who want to take away the legal right of every woman to a publicly funded abortion should have the right to spread their seed taken away in return.
That's right. Fair's fair. You keep trying to take away my rights? I'm going to try to take away yours.
So here's a Bill I propose be put forward by a Liberal who isn't too lilly-livered to take a public stand on abortion rights for women in Canada (on account of he's afraid that if he does, he won't get his communion cracker at Church on Sunday):
Bill C-485 (The Sequel to Bill C-484)
Hereby and Whereas and Wtf - That - any male Members of Parliament who voted for Bill C-484, if it becomes law, be required to undergo vasectomies. And their sons be required to undergo vasectomies. And their sons' sons, if there are any ALREADY BORN be required to undergo vasectomies.
Really.
Otherwise, it's patently unfair because, while these male Members of Parliament will still be able to impregnate a woman, she won't be able to have an abortion.
That's tyranny. Because those men who want to deny women their legal right to publicly funded abortions are, literally, the State. Bill C-484 may well be their attempt to make over the world in THEIR images by retaining the power of procreation, while denying women the right to abortions.
I'm quite serious.
My rights matter just as much as their rights.
By the way, Mainstream Media, if you are still there, what is Bill C-484 costing us (and us includes me and lots of other Feminists) in tax dollars as it works its way through the House?
There's a bit of a blog war going on right now in the rarefied world of Feminist blogging with certain bloggers (male) pointing out the weakness of the Feminist movement in Canada to other bloggers (female).
Sigh. I used to get into some whopping fights with men at the NDP when I worked there because men on the Left are often assumed to be Feminists when what they really are is men on the Left.
And sometimes even that assumption isn't safe because what they really are is just at work collecting a pay cheque because they know a good gig when they land one. Sometimes, too, they're just sort of contrary and like the idea of not being Conservatives or Liberals so they work at/for the NDP. Occasionally, they will come out as not really Left at all, quite Right, in fact. I dated a guy like that - he was the Press Secretary, and although he talked a very Rightwing game (mostly for purposes of mockery), he was dating me and, although I didn't say anything during our relationship (too embarrassed - it was the mid-80s), I am very definitely a Feminist.
Also, and this was a big point in his favour (one I didn't take advantage of because I can't take advantage of advantages on account of I'm one of THOSE Feminists), unlike some men on the Left, who are Dutch Treaters (Labour guys, to a man), he recognized that making at least twice as much money as me (with half the education, skills, etc - but like I say, politics is deceptive), meant that he should cover more of the bill.
Sadly, or happily, depending on your point of view, if there's one thing my Mother taught me (which I forgot for a dozen years or so while I stayed home with children instead of working to earn a pay cheque) it is to always pay your own way and never depend on a man for money. (And she meant it literally, too, because her husband died leaving her a widowed mother-at-home with four young children. She also led a life completely different than her contemporaries because she made all her own decisions, but that's a whole other lesson.)
So it's all very deceptive, who's a Feminist and who isn't, but one interesting discovery I've made over the years is, being a Feminist means never having to say you're sorry. That's because, being a Feminist - and ladies? "only women bleed" - means men don't really like you anyway (so fuck you, pal) and why say sorry to another woman? If she's not a Feminist - fuck 'er, and if she is - suck it up. Or as my Mother used to say to us regularly and regardless of what calamity had befallen us, "Excuse me? Did somebody tell you life was going to be a bowl of cherries (bed of roses, walk in the park, picnic and so on and so forth and more of the same etc etc)?" To which we'd answer cautiously, "No?", because once one of my "smartass" siblings answered, "Yes?", and you don't want to know what happened to him.
Because that's the thing, isn't it. Feminism is a political fight for women's equality with men, so although we've got to play within the system - and we do, but more on that later - there's little point in aligning with any of the existing political parties because it only gives them a credibility they don't deserve.
Politics is backroom boys and male leaders and women are just filler and feel good and look at all our women and what the hell is she wearing and that's a fact, Jack.
Also, politicians want to be liked so that people will vote for them - they just aren't going to go too far out on a limb for Feminism because 1) nobody likes Feminists and 2) Feminism isn't their priority. In fact, I'm pretty sure it falls somewhere short of getting their Christmas cards out on time. It falls definitely short of being the first to sport a poppy.
So, although Feminists need to work within the political system, politics doesn't really work for Feminists in the traditional sense because the traditional sense of politics is all about men, for men, by men. It's a little like how politics doesn't really work for Anarchists and Libertarians, either - except the opposite. That's because Anarchists and/or Libertarians = Male. Very male. Way too male. Give me liberty or give me death? Uh... that's okay. As a woman, I can adapt fairly easily to oppression and subjugation, thanks. And since I'm going to burn in hell for all eternity when I die, anyway (for being a woman, of course), I'd like to live as long as possible - even if it means as a second-class non-citizen, as opposed to just a second-class citizen which I'm used to, quite frankly.
Women don't fare well in Anarchy. No, no, no. We're stuck between a rock and a hard place because we actually need this same political system that works against us, to work within, just to achieve a sensible system for everybody, a sensible system which is based on a level playing field. And creating a level playing field means making the world over in OUR image - female. Like they say, the pendulum has to swing clear over to the other side to land somewhere in the middle and since we don't want middle, it has to swing pretty far from brawn to hopefully rest somewhere a helluva lot closer to brain than the middle - if you catch my drift (think War on Terror/Bush Inc/Conservatives taken over by Reformers/Bill C-484/Fox/CanWest).
So it's going to take a long time to get closer to the brain end of the line. A long time. And, although we should use the political system to make gains, it's a mistake to think we can depend on any one political party to help us. Look at the political parties in this country. They're all led by men, dominated by men, and although men can be Feminists, well, they just don't care as much about our Rights as we do. Or, at all, maybe. There's really no way to trust them on this one, ladies.
Think of it this way, while behind every Feminist there may be a good man, it's important to know that he's not that into you - as a Feminist. He probably just likes the view when you bend over. Especially if you have a great ass.
So yeah, arguing with men on the Internet about Feminism, ladies? Good one. Now get a grip. What was it Nellie McClung said before everybody decided she had to be held to a standard no man from the same period has ever been held to? "Never retract, never explain, never apologize; get things done and let them howl."
And Feminism, because it's women's work, is never done.
ButTheBrickWon'tFitPastFlanagan's&McVety'sHeads
"I don't believe that's what Canada needs and I don't believe that's what Canadians want. They want lower taxes, less debt and carefully targeted assistance that helps workers, families, communities, businesses."
"Workers, families, communites, businesses" - isn't that pretty much everybody, though? So, like, aren't you promising to assist everybody? I mean, I can't think of anybody who doesn't belong to at least one of those groups. Surely you plan to discriminate beyond "workers, families, communities, businesses".
What about... sex trade workers? Um... gay families? Let's see... the Jamaican Canadian community? Ooh... Ontario's manufacturing businesses?
"Canada will come out stronger and in better shape than it is today," he said, predicting that the economy of Canadian children will be "much stronger" than the current economy.
Heyyyyy... you're not a professional psychic - are you? Because if you're wrong, and it doesn't, it just means that Canadian children suffer now AND later - when they're adults.
I dunno, Dude. I'm starting to think you just spout nonsense.
"Brick, Ass, Sideways" will be a recurring SooeySays feature. I'm sure you can figure it out. The first winner is:
ButTheBrickWon'tFitPastMyHead
Mother's Day is in May, Idiot!
Afghanistan is such a big lie, isn't it. I mean, we've been listening to nothing but horseshit about why we're there and debating it as if it isn't all horseshit.
Let's just be honest. It's a sop to the U.S. And that's fair enough, I suppose. Perhaps, it's been ever thus and ever will be. The U.S. is a powerful country with dwindling resources and we're the eggheads right next door with forests and water and lots of untapped mining potential.
But if you've been paying attention, you'll notice that the New Conservative government and its media have spun the horseshit reason as to why we're in Afghanistan - to fight for the rights of women and girls there - into an attack on Feminists here who are opposed to the war.
You know the argument they use, that Feminists don't support the war in Afghanistan because they don't care about women's rights other than their own.
Interesting, eh? The War on Afghanistan has been used against Feminists here by this government and its media to attack our politics - even while we fund it just as much as they do - and even while the government strips women here of their human rights through such sneaky backdoor Bills as Bill C-484.
Meanwhile, women only have rights here because people fought for them, politically.
But they use the same argument as the reason for Bill C-484, you'll notice, as they do for the war in Afghanistan. (Or maybe you haven't noticed, but that's why I'm here - to spread the word.) It's all for women, they say. They're doing it all for women.
Just not women who are Feminists. That's because Feminists aren't REAL women and REAL women aren't Feminists.
Get it?
It's a war alright - a propaganda war. And our government and media are waging it against us.
We may as well call a spade what it is in Canada - a spade. Afterall, somebody voted for this government of liars and bribers and misogynists, so the enemy is clearly - us.
Meanwhile, Bill C-484 passed first reading with the help of Liberals either not showing up for the vote or voting with the New Conservatives for it. (In the extreme irony department, Dion was at an International Women's Day function.) And the Canadian media, by-and-large and save for the odd lady MsZerbStandsAlone,Again, continues to ignore the assault on women's rights that is Bill C-484 (you need only look at who voted for it to see it for what it is, too - an abortion recriminalization bill) - because it works for the other side, the side that doesn't care about your right as a citizen to have autonomy over your own body.
We're nowhere, Baby. The little rump Reform party of whackos and fringers is running our country and making it over in its image as sure as the infinite pool of unborn rights over women's rights is ever expanding.
Support the Troops. Maybe they'll learn something about rights in Afghanistan that they can bring back home and teach to our legislators. Meanwhile, here's lesson number one: Without reproductive rights, women have no real rights at all.
Ohhhhh - I get it. The Liberals are planning an election like some couples plan a baby - when the timing is right.
Okay. I say we skip ahead and adopt China now.
There is no hidden agenda about to be sprung upon us by Stephen Harper and his New Conservative strategists, Thomas Flanagan and Charles McVety. Bill C-484 and Bill C-10 are no surprise to those of us who can spot a wolf in sheep's clothing. But Feminists have sharp senses because, well, we get a lot of sense sharpening practice.
Bill C-484 isn't even the first determined step in recriminalizing abortion. The government has been busily stacking judiciary panels with pro-lifers and stripping women's legal aid groups of funding since Stephen Harper was first sworn in. We are being governed by Christian Evangelical Pro-Lifers and the alarm bells were sounded long before the government was elected.
The powers that be want this government because it works for them, not us. So it is south of the border, so it is here, a little bit later.
Didn't Tony Clement, Health Minister, recently "just say no" to drugs?
Look, these guys have waited out so many Liberal governments for the chance to implement a Socially Conservative agenda that there is no way they're ever going to blow it by being called out on something as pedestrian as a Budget. Cripes, that Budget was designed to pull the rug out from any Opposition - precisely in order that the Christian Evangelical Pro-Life agenda would continue to be implemented, buried as it is in bills austensibly about Crime! or (yawn) complicated tax incentives.
Feminists knew this was coming the minute we heard those five promises made by Stephen Harper on the campaign trail that carefully sidestepped everything we knew to be true about him and his REAL Party.
The media, for whatever reason, maybe it's stacked with Christian Evangelical Pro-Lifers, too, did its level best to not inform Canadians as to who these people really are - and still hasn't, as far as I'm concerned. Harper is Bush is McVety is Falwell is Flanagan is Rove. There is no divide of nationality in the world of Social Conservatism. These people are Ideologues and they're dangerous and for some reason, Canadians have decided to bury their heads in the snow and pretend they aren't what they so obviously are - True Believers.
Look, they actively tried to sabotage a Democrat candidate during a Primary - AND they may well have got away with it. Who do you think they did that for if not their Republican Gawd?
Anyway, bribes and leaks are no biggie to these people because it's not about politics for them, it's about destroying Feminism. Feminism is the Devil. Don't believe me? Conrad Black is in jail but the newspaper he started and the careers he launched are in full swing, further to the Right than ever, the mission to spread the gospel of Social Conservatism expanded such that most of the Canadian media (not to mention, American media) conspired during the last election to make Stephen Harper Prime Minister of Canada.
The unthinkable happened and is happening and Bill C-484 and Bill C-10 are just the visible bits. So what do we do now? Well, first off, assume that any media person who has anything good to say about Stephen Harper et al - is one of them. That's because it's not the media's job to say good things about the government. It's the media's job to expose the government to us.
Think of it as You against a Socially Conservatist Invasion of the Body Snatchers when you read the news and you, too, will soon, very soon, Rabbit, have the sharpened senses of a Feminist.
Naftagate drools. Cadscam rools. Gawd. Bore much, MSM? We, the people, want an Inquiry into Cadscam, not Naftagate. Harper's tricking you again, dufii.
But you know what's a real scandal? Wajid Khan's hair. Holy Bollywood, Batman.
Oh my. What a huckster, out selling his Bigoted Gawd to Canadians, like an old fashioned snake oil salesman. If I hadn't seen him on The Agenda, I'd hardly believe he was real, and not Jerry Falwell arisen from Hell.
Sadly, no one asked him what he thought of the Federal Government granting Churches a 100% tax cut since forever and ever, Amen. Yet it would have been beauty to watch the Big Ol' Boy Hypocrite veer back over from saying "YES!" to ridding us of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act because he wants the freedom to offend anybody who isn't a Capital "B" Bigot - BUT - "NO!" to tax cuts for entertainment industry projects that might offend a Capital "B" Bigot - BUT - "YES!" again to 100% tax cuts for Churches uniting Capital "B" Bigots under one unholy roof.
Blech. Absolute puke thy name is Charles McVety. By the way, Dear Reader, I heard today that he actually brags that he is the evil behind the censorship bid in Bill C-10 on account of his close and abiding relationship with the Prime Minister. Lovely. Our very own Rasputin.
It feels good to stand opposed to everything he believes is Right. I dare say - Holy.
I've been googling Thomas Flanagan to find out more about Stephen Harper's main man and I notice that he didn't go to Vietnam to fight Communists, but came up here to Canada to fight them, instead.
Safer, I guess. Anyway, Marci McDonald's piece in The Walrus is still considered the "must read" article on Prof. Flanagan, so here it is in full:
TheManBehindStephenHarper
It's full of ironies, of course, the most notable being that Prof. Flanagan has pursued his... crusade against Indian Rights (land claims, reserve system) with big fat government grants (isn't it always the way with these anti-government Conservatives, Dear Reader) so he's pretty much been on the government teat since... escaping to Canada, but here is what is said about him, nonetheless:
Flanagan's expert-witness stints have not proved unrewarding, but friends insist he is driven not by money but ideology. "He's concerned the state should not adopt people as wards," says Allan Kornberg. "It eventually has a corrosive effect on the entire society."
Sure. I guess. Unless you're the white professor from the United States adopted pretty much as a ward by the Canadian government.
Overall Flanagan seems to be a nasty and hilariously hypocritical piece of work but I'm curious as to the name of this textbook and where one might find a copy:
Today, Flanagan's work remains an explosive topic, but few of his colleagues are willing to criticize him - at least on the record. After an introductory political-science textbook he co-authored was dropped from Ontario's approved list of high-school texts because of its "racial, religious, and sex bias" against women and Jews, he became active in the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship, an aggressive lobby of professors fighting political correctness, on whose board he now sits.
Anyway, I don't see much on abortion in the article, so I'm going to do a bit more googling. He does have a book called: "Game Theory and Canadian Politics" and I read someone's critique of its passages on abortion (the reviewer seemed underwhelmed by Prof. Flanagan's scholarship, by the way) which certainly indicate to me that Bill C-484 is exactly how the Alberta Reformers turned New Conservatives plan to begin the recriminalization of abortion.
But, you knew that already, didn't you, Dear Reader.
Ah well, who knows what else lurks in the shadows. Back to googling Thomas Flanagan.
Here's Mark Steyn blathering away about rights and how scary Sharia-type stuff can happen if we don't act now to stop it on account of American university administrators have developed a habit of selling out supposed American principles of equality to rich Saudi princes with gobs of cash and backward views on women, unlike here in Canada where mostly New Conservative (not that the women-haters don't cross Party lines, of course) lying' bribin' legislators can devote their mandate to denying women persons the right to autonomy over their own bodies:
InTheCornerForAReason
Say, I guess according to the media, American university administrators would just be acting their consciences like Canadian legislators are voting theirs.
Since "voting your conscience" always has to do with "voting against women's rights", why not call a spade a spade and refer to it as "voting your prejudices".
Conscience has nothing to do with it.
This just in:
UnrepententOldHippie
And from Canadian Cynic, a list of the Liberals who helped it along. Vote them out next go 'round, please, everybody who believes in human rights. They shouldn't be legislators. Remember, these people do not believe in women's rights. Their mission in politics is to do their Gawd's will - you know, the Gawd who hates women. And, as we now know, "Liberal" doesn't mean anything, anymore. Because other "Liberals" pretend that this is a no-go-zone. You know why? Because abortion is a women's rights issue - so it doesn't matter as much as, oh, say anything affecting men.
Think of it this way, they share the same moral values as the Taliban:
CanadianCynic
From RedJenny's blog (Hahahahaha! And here I wasn't going to bother linking to this piece because I actually thought, "A women's court? In this day and age?" Hahahahahaha!):
F-email
Finally:
OneMoreTimeFromSooeySays
There is so much to dislike about our country right now I no longer know where to begin. So I think I'll start with Bill C-484 because it speaks to exactly what women feared in a New Conservative Government under the leadership of Stephen Harper.
The unborn. It's funny how the Misogynists can get away with speaking through the unborn in Canada in 2008. Good Gawd in Heaven, the assault here on Earth against women's rights as people never ends, does it. And I guess if you care at all about your rights, life is just one long Feminist campaign. That's because, when Conservatives are in power, women's rights are at risk and that's all there is to it.
I dunno, maybe we should bribe the bastards.
Ah well, onward and upward and back to fighting for your rights against the unborn all over again. I'm up for it.
Just say no to the Taliban in Canada!
Oh, and lest I forget the NDP (women-haters are in every party, Dear Reader):
OneBadAppleDoesSpoilTheWholeBunch,Grrl
We need a spray: "XX-Haters B-Gone!"
You hear all the time from political pundits when they're talking about charismatic politicians that Hitler was charismatic, but in any footage I've ever seen of Hitler he just seems like a madman, crazy as a bag of hammers.
I dunno, but is it possible the media can't tell the difference between charismatic and crazy?
I think I experienced the first instance of it today when I noticed there wasn't even a snowman around to punch in the head.
The Globe & Mail has an article on the whole Cadman/bribe/lawsuit scandal today and it ends with six questions it would like answered by the New Conservatives:
WhereIsOneOfThoseReporterThingiesWhenYouNeedOne?
Right. So. Uh... Any reporters out there to provide the Globe & Mail with a few answers to some questions?
In the meantime, I'm going with the original alleged version of events before everybody's pants started bursting into flames: Two New Conservative Party officials went to visit Chuck Cadman in hopes of bribing him into voting with their Party to bring down the Government of Canada; and that Stephen Harper, rather than saying to them both, "don't do it because bribing a politician is illegal", said, "don't bother because he won't change his mind".
Or something alleged like that, anyways.
It's true. They can't help themselves. Which tells me that if she wins the nomination for the Democrats, she's a shoo-in for President.
And it's interesting to me that, yet again, men on the Left are reluctant about the only woman in the race, while men on the Right are saying, "at least she's not McCain".
I get that she's no Obama, but you know what, fellas? Obama's no Obama, either.
I guess as long as we have Oil Companies we'll have Conservative governments to serve their evil ends, eh?
Put your hands up if you think municipal politicians figured climate change meant no snow to worry about having to plow anymore.
By the way, if you were out driving in Ottawa this morning and you honked your horn at a pedestrian who was walking on the street because the sidewalks are snowed in and you thought to yourself, "streets are for cars, sidewalks are for non-cars" - fuck off and die.
And in other news, "Hamas Defeats Israel Again".
But seriously, it's like Hillary is the new "Black Like Me" candidate in the race:
SwingLo,SweetChariot
"For everyone here in Ohio, and across America, who has ever been counted out but refused to be knocked out, and for everyone who has stumbled but stood right back up, and for everyone who works hard and never gives up, this one is for you," Clinton said in her Tuesday night speech.
Okay. Pierre Bourque has a paid headline on his noozesite: "Clip of Mother Being Gang-Raped Posted on YouTube".
Fuck off, Bourque.
You know who you are.
Gee, I guess Mike Huckabee must have a lot of questions for Gawd, eh? Or just one: "Oh Father, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Because Gawd's a gawdless commie, I guess, Mike Huckabee.
Of course, if you had a 9" penis, you wouldn't care about Gawd, now, would you? Admit it:
It'sNotTheSize,It'sTheHugenessOfTheSize
NewConservativesTryToPreventElectionOfFirstBlackPresident
Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae said it was clear the Tories are trying to help Republican friends at the expense of Canadian interests.
"They will do what is necessary to help Republicans. They're a nasty, unprincipled bunch, who are incompetent to boot," Rae wrote in a blog.
Gee, that'll be funny if Bob Rae doesn't win the by-election. Although I guess then the Liberal Party could do like they did with Stanley Knowles of the NDP and give him a desk in the middle of the House of Commons so he'd have something to do until he, like, died. I dunno. Could he be made Party Whip? I mean, chances are he'd be more likely to be around for votes than elected Members. Gosh. That'd be awkward, though:
Dion: "So... Ahhhhh... How 'bout dos Blue Bird?"
Rae: "I think I should probably reign over Caucus meetings now. You go work on your English. I bought you a one-way ticket to England."
Dion: "You know, you doan win, eh?"
Rae: "I'd prefer we not discuss that now. Or ever. See you at the Caucus meeting. And please don't be late. I've scheduled a full agenda. Oh, but you have to catch your flight to England. Nevermind. I'll just add Leader to my list of titles and take over for you."
RemembrancesOfEzrasPast
But I can speak to how Tom Flanagan and Stephen Harper negotiate political problems. From personal experience, offering bribes just isn't how they operate.
Not with True Believers, anyway. Phff. You're lucky you didn't end up driving the campaign bus for them, ya putz.
Gawd. I like Cadman more each day. At least he was a tough sell.
As a Canadian citizen who is not at all in favour of guys like Thomas Flanagan of the Fraser Institute and Charles McVety of the Canada Christian College (both Americans, too, as it turns out - McVety actually LOOKS American) having any say in Canadian government policy whatsoever, I really hope it turns out that Stephen Harper is guilty, guilty, guilty of knowing all about the alleged bribe offered to Chuck Cadman, and that all three of them just ride off into the sunset never to return again.
Er, all three of them meaning Flanagan, McVety and Harper. Cadman already rode off. Although, not never to return again, I guess.
By the way, in case you didn't believe me about McVety actually looking American:
ScrollDownToTheFirstPhoto=CharlesMcVety
It took me a while to figure out girly girls but now I realize - they're a crucial element to the future of Feminism because girly girls want it all.
And why not? They want all the recognition by society that it's a helluva lot more work being female (ask any girl when she starts the hair removal process, "if you could just switch sexes and let it grow, would you?") and they want compensation for the extra work.
I mean, I grew up figuring girls had to learn to conform to a man's world, but now I'm realizing - hey - why should we have to conform to it instead of it conforming to us?
See, men in middle-age don't wake up at 3:00 a.m. with hot flashes so they don't get these revelations, revelations they wouldn't have anyway because the world has been designed to accomodate maleness, not femaleness.
It's a big difference, looking at the world as being there for you (male), instead of looking at you as being there for the world (female), and if men could understand that, they'd understand why women are such bitches after a while.
I dunno, maybe that girly girl assertiveness (something most women lack almost entirely) is what will bring about those little changes to enable girls and women to live female lives in what has traditionally been a man's world.
You know, we think of Feminism as a political movement that has been to the benefit of girls and women (unless you're a Rightwinger, in which case you think of Feminism as the Devil's Work) but it has also, I think, freed up boys and men to be individuals.
I mean, the workplace is fraught, still, with sexism, but it has changed so much in just a couple of decades that it's only a matter of time before men feel empowered to embrace their priorities (note the Oprahesque language "empowered", "embrace") and seek meaning in their lives beyond the workplace - just as women have always done - generally speaking, of course - very generally speaking.
Because I wonder, sometimes, if the corporate ceiling is really something women can't break through or if it's just that they don't. I mean, let's face it. Women have different priorities at different ages and living with the facts of life as a woman is much more difficult, physically, than it is for a man. Biologically speaking, life is harder for women and maybe that's why we live longer than men - we're tougher by the end of it - but we've had to prioritize more and maybe, just maybe, the corporate world doesn't cut it at the age when it's there for the taking by men of the same age, too.
Think of all those studies that have been done on girls and boys entering puberty that indicate girls lose their confidence right then and there, while boys are as gung ho as ever. Well, maybe that's just another biological reality at play that means real life happens sooner and harder for girls than it does for boys and that, by nature, we have to prioritize sooner and harder, too. Ask any 12 year old girl if she thinks she can grow up to be a prima ballerina and, unless she's already a prima ballerina at the National Academy of Dance, she'll say, "no". But ask a 12 year old boy who doesn't even play hockey yet if he thinks he can be an NHL superstar and he'll look off into imaginationland and picture himself scoring the winning Stanley Cup goal for the Toronto Maple Leafs and say, "awesome... are you going to eat that?".
But there's still no denying that girls today - once again, speaking very generally - are doing what they want - you go grrl! - and not in any way feeling held back by sexism.
Well, I think that extends to boys, too. Boys today are doing what they want, as well - and not feeling like they can't because they're boys. And I predict that there will be quite a levelling out at the corporate level because boys today are much less likely to want to be suits than were even men of my age - many of whom, by the way, still think they can be rock superstars, although they've most of them given up on the NHL dream and are living it through their sons.
And because somebody has to be a suit, or, or, well now - wouldn't that be a nice social evolution brought to you by Feminism, eh? If there were no corporate suits for tomorrow because the kids of today, girls AND boys, decided to have some meaning in their lives and went off to save the whales and bring world peace instead.
You know what? It's not even over yet and I'm already sick of Obama and his inspired followers. Seriously. They're starting to make me sick. And he's starting to seem like a smug upstart who needs a lesson in humility, the kind of lesson in humility only losing to John McCain could inspire.
It's terrible what politics does to people, isn't it? But I really don't think creating the legend before the man has accomplished anything is a good idea. And yet, that's exactly what those dumbass Americans have gone ahead and done.
I dunno. Maybe I'm just not open enough to change, but "blech", is all I have to say right now to Obamamania.
I'm watching a typical panel on television discuss poverty in Ontario (typical because it involves a politician from the current government, in this case, Liberal, talking about strategy, planning, longterm solutions) and I find it amusing that the representative Minister has talked to employers a lot about this issue and they've told her that if the minimum wage was raised right now to $10.25, it would cause job losses.
Okay. I guess employers have a right to say whatever, although I'm not sure why whatever they say is parrotted back by a government Minister as necessarily reasonable, or reliable, or even practical. She didn't mention having talked to any poor people to ask them what they thought about there being a minimum wage of $10.25 right here right now in Ontario.
Because if people working full time, all year, are still living below the poverty line - and many of them are - then that tells me that somebody who's not an employer or, I guess, a self-interested poor person, should say to the Minister, so fucking what if raising the minimum wage to $10.25 results in job losses? Obviously, not having a minimum wage of $10.25 isn't helping the full time working poor much, anyway - is it.
It's poverty. And because poverty is the problem we're trying to fix, then it makes sense that the much maligned solution of throwing money at it is exactly what is called for here. I mean, if you're poor, you need money. Right? It's just common sense - common sense without the revolution.
I dunno. These governments today: poor = in need of money. And I'm not sure why, after all the progress we've made, socially, the Minister isn't talking directly to poor people to solve the problem of poverty. My guess is that she knows what they'd say and there'd go the need to talk about strategy, planning, longterm solutions on television panels.
ChimeraSays,"BringItOn,Steve!SueMe,Too,MrPrimeMinister!""
Oh well, I wouldn't say all that. Not up until the libel chill, anyway. But now I'm starting to think he must be guilty as fuck, at least.
You know, if Cadmangate ends up all over Dion, I wonder how many fingerprints on the knives in his back will belong to Liberals? I mean, I can think of a contender or two who would benefit greatly should Harper manage to pull off the "everybody was lying, including me on tape, except when they weren't lying, and also that one time Chuck Cadman told the truth when he wasn't lying" racket.
Oh,JustShutTheFuckUp,Dona
"He looked me straight in the eyes and told me he had no knowledge of an insurance policy offer," she said, recalling a conversation from more than two years ago. "I knew he was telling me the truth; I could see it in his eyes. He said, yes, he'd had some discussions with two individuals about asking Chuck to rejoin the party, but he'd told them they were wasting their time trying to convince Chuck."
Yabbut, were his eyes spiralling when he said it? Was he swinging a watch, slowly, back and forth, back and forth? I mean, c'mon, lady - you're what's called a CaucusTeaser. Now, piss or get off the pot.
"You yellow bastards - come back here and I'll bite your legs off!"
HamasDefeatsIsrael,Again
Meanwhile, as tragic life imitates comic art:
112PalestiniansKilledBeforeIsraeliArmyAdmitsDefeat
The Palestinian militant group Hamas claimed victory over Israeli forces and held a rally in Gaza City.
There's nothing chic about eating seafood, raw or otherwise. If you don't live in the sea, you have no business eating its food.
This has been an eco-worrier announcement by Sooey.
Just in case you pay no attention whatsoever to political blogs, Dear Reader, all the New Conservative ones (and closeted New Conservative Liberal ones) are warning other bloggers to "STOP TALKING ABOUT THE BRIBE!!!!!" because if you don't "STOP TALKING ABOUT THE BRIBE!!!!!" you, too, will be sued for libel by Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada.
Seriously. Steve Harper has the biggest band of flying monkeys on the whole Internet.
Hm, he must bribe them with Star Wars action figures or sex line calling cards or - aha! - photos of Himself from the Stephen Harper Art Gallery Collection lining the corridors of power on Parliament Hill!
ThomasFlanagan'sCanada,BroughtToYouByStephenHarper
"They've gradually re-engineered the system. I'm quite impressed with it,'' said Flanagan, who ran the 2004 Conservative campaign and has been a longtime confidant and former chief of staff to Harper.
Sure, you are impressed, Thomas Flanagan, but will Stephen Harper later claim to Canadians to have known nothing about it?
That's the question what worries me.
Demi Moore has one expression: Clenched.
"TearsOfAClown",CanadianCynic
So, you're guilty? Not guilty? You're suing. That usually means guilty as charged - in Canada, anyway. Wow. So, does this mean an Inquiry is out of the question because the matter is before the courts?
I No Nut'ink
Gosh, if you ask me, the libel notice makes SOMEONE look guilter'n the alleged defamation on the Liberal website. But why not sue Cadman's widow and child for libel? They're the ones who say it happened. Ohhhhhh! I get it - you're not saying it didn't happen - you're saying you didn't know about it.
Nevermind. Carry on. As you were, New Conservative Party of Canada.
I was feeling kind of sorry for Conrad Black because I'm like that, I always feel sorry for the guy taking the hard fall because being low to the ground, I know I can take it better than he can and yet, it's still hard, isn't it - when I realized, hey, he'll probably like it in prison.
I mean, think about it. What would he be doing anyway, if he wasn't in prison? Why, he'd be puttering around the castle, reading something or other in the afternoons. Maybe taking in a bit of exercise in the morning, eating British food at regular intervals. Making a daily phone call to his lawyers. Then off to bed for an early start to the next day.
Okay, okay. I'll publish your letter to the editor, Mr. Kinsella, even if Macleans doesn't. And believe me, I have a bigger readership than it does, anyway. That's because I have a world famous webmaster, Ou81aswell - whereas Macleans is stuck with Ken Whyte. And we all know what happens under the management of Ken Whyte (Gawd - even his snob cred is pretty "Fresh Prince of Bel Air" these days, if you know what I mean):
MarkSteynBlowsChinks,Er,IMean,Chunks
So yeah. I know I shouldn't get involved in any of this because it's like going outside in your underwear and poking a rabid skunk with a stick, but I can't help myself on account of I'm an irksome git, and besides, how often do I get to agree with Mark Steyn about anything? Right? I mean, c'mon. The guy believes white western women (hey, www!) should be strapped to gurneys and forced into mandatory childbirth as regulated by the nanny state in order to up the white race demographic and take on the Islamic Menace that is threatening to take away our freedoms.
Or so he says. I think he might just not like white western women very much.
And the Islamic Menace sucks at taking away our freedoms, anyway, if you ask me, but there you go - not asking. I mean, the U.S. seems pretty much the same as ever, bombs away while the economy tanks, but it'll be a while before Iraq can put in its bid for the Olympics, if you know what I mean - and you probably don't because you're not paying close enough attention:
TheBaghdadOlympics
Besides, let's face it, our freedoms have been more taken away by George W. Bush and Stephen Harper than, well, I don't know the names of any current Islamic Menace leaders. And, is it me? Or do those guys all look alike? I dunno. It must be the beards and the scowling expressions.
Of course, maybe you don't care too much for white western women, either. I dunno. You're really big on all this protection against hate speech, none of which includes women, who are consistently the most oppressed people in the world and who are supposedly now the reason why we've gone to War in Afghanistan.
Gee, blame women much Canadian Army?
Also, well, even in context you strike me as wildly sexist - wildly sexist - nevermind just listing words you've used to describe women: Hag, Harridan, Cow, Skank, Bitch. Cunt? Have you used cunt, yet?
But yeah. I gotta go with Steyn on this one. And so would the rest of the Internet except that lots of people are so afraid of you going after them and destroying their reputations that they pretend they aren't laughing when really, all they've done is the cyber equivalent of squeezing their lips tight so it's not like, "Hahahahahahaha!", all over their blogs.
Some would say they're being hypocrites. I'd say they're being TitFuckMeJesusers.
I mean, c'mon. You picture a grown man, well known for the obsessive relentless character assassination of others for things they have posted on the Internet, down at knee-high to a grasshopper level, taking photographs in a boys washroom at a hockey rink - posting in righteous indignation about spotting a swastika on a wall. (And, you know, I hate to tell you this, but kids practice drawing stuff like that - the Y region on a woman, stars with five points, writing "boy" and bringing the stem of the y all the way around to make a man's face, breasts, hatchets sticking out of leaking brains, turd piles, the list of offensive drawings goes on and on.)
I mean, blog entries like that were the reason eye-rolling emoticons were invented, ferchrissakes. Of course it's going to cause titters on the Internet. Who do you think your audience is? Ladies Who Lunch? The Fucking Queen? John Ralston Saul?
But context is everything, isn't it. Context. Context is the thing. Context, context, context. You just can't have enough context.
Anyway, here's hopin' Macleans publishes your letter. It's great stuff, if you ask me. But, you know, Ken Whyte is no Sooey, so he might not recognize gold when he sees it.
Oh - just for fun:
EverNoticeHowNAMBLASoundsLikePABLUM?
Why would you need Chuck Cadman to state publicly that something never happened if it never happened?
Another expensive taxpayer funded New Conservative dream that I had assumed would have had a wing in the Asper's (rich offspring owners of the insidiously biased CanWest/Global) Canadian Museum of Human Rights, but I guess not:
TheCommunistsAreStillComing!TheCommunistsAreStillComing!
"This is not a political project, this is a human project. This is not a project for or against. This is not a project to promote any political agenda or ideology."
Oh no. Of course not. So, I'm guessing you pretty much "mums'd da woid" with the reps from Polish Congress Canada about that 21st Century incident involving the RCMP tasering a Polish national, Robert Dziekanski, to death.
Good grief, Meg Rosoff, as if I don't feel lazy and useless and pathetic enough for not getting my short story blog up and running yet:
ButDoYouMissYourAdvertisingCareer?
Instead, what drives Rosoff is the time she may not have left. She began to write after her youngest sister died of breast cancer at the age of 39. Just as How I Live Now was released, Rosoff was diagnosed with the disease herself. Her sister's death and her own diagnosis "put everything into perspective."
Grr. Yeah. Perspective. Geez Louise. Easy for you, Meg Rosoff.
I'm tossing this idea out there for the solely humanitarian purpose of rebuilding Iraq in an obviously corrupt and nefarious way by suggesting that the next Olympics (winter or summer - it doesn't much matter, does it, since we have snow machines nowadays, anyway) be awarded to Iraq.
Feel free to steal it like you steal all my great and powerful ideas, MSM.
Hey everybody, let's not forget that we're talking about dirty political tricks by backroom boys, here. I mean, I worked at the provincial NDP when the Liberals were in power in Ontario and I remember a couple of backroom boys coming up with the strategy of focusing on the female cabinet ministers during Question Period because their thinking was that they'd be easier to knock off.
You know - like they were the weak link because they were female politicians.
The Members, of course, were fine with it because Members know the reason for political backroom boys is that they, the Members, don't get any on 'em. It's a very symbiotic relationship and it works very well for both backroom boys and politicians and ain't nothin' to be done about it - apparently.
Think Rona Ambrose. She would have been targeted by the Opposition because she's a woman and the political backroom boys always figure the public doesn't REALLY like women in politics (mostly because they don't).
I know, I know - very sexist, isn't it. But that's why they're called "backroom boys" and not "whores" - there just aren't many backroom girls.
You know why? Because the leaders and leading Members in Canada's political parties are mostly men, and backroom boys know that if there are backroom girls, the girls will get the inside edge on the boys because they can have actual sex with the Members - so they make sure girls never get into the backroom.
I always thought the backroom boys weren't trying hard enough, myself, to get that inside track, but - what do I know? I was only ever a clerk.
(Sooey Aside: Listen up girls - once a clerk, always a clerk. Never learn how to do anything practical with regards to office work and you'll go far. Trust me. Of course, you'll probably never have to admit to having once been a backroom boy, either.)
Anyway, I just thought I'd ask - (since one of the backroom boys who was supposed to have been involved in this Cadman fiasco, if it is a fiasco and if he was involved, is a Fraser Institute t'inker) - have you noticed how many studies from the Fraser Institute have been published by the mainstream media proving that hard right political policies are not only the ones the Government of Canada should be adopting, but are also the ones Canadians WANT the Government of Canada to adopt?
Because I have and it's really annoying on account of it's such a BIG FUCKING LIE!!! I mean, it's really not conscionable for the media to be paying any attention whatsoever to the Fraser Institute and yet, cripes, I think Canwest must reference it every day in one of its Nooze Rticles or Advertorials.
By the way, the New Conservative Party has gobs of money, gobs of it. That's why it's ready for an election ALL THE TIME!!! and could easily have paid any amount for a $1,000,000 life insurance policy. NOT that it necessarily did. And NOT that the tape with Stephen Harper, himself, on it confirming in his own words that he was well aware of "financial considerations" having been made to Chuck Cadman on his deathbed wasn't doctored. Or doesn't really mean anything much even if it wasn't doctored - because people say lots of things that don't necessarily have any context or meaning.
ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE ON CRACK!!!!!
For some bizarre reason, bloggers who use their real names think of themselves as morally superiour to bloggers who choose to remain anonymous, even though most of us are easily found out and don't really give much of a rat's ass if the jealous psycho nutcases who care so much about who we REALLY are manage to unmask us, or in my case me - Sally Housecoat.
I dunno, but it's always struck me as pretty unfair to those who share my last name that I would blog proudly away on the worldwideweb using it where anybody and everybody can read me - as if I'm not a total dorkenheimer knobhead who might just as well be shuffling around Ward 8 at The Mental shaking my fist at potted plants. I mean, c'mon people. Blogging using your real name is the equivalent of leaving a big steaming bag of poo on your neighbours front step - with a neon arrow pointing to the bag from the sidewalk: "Mike Brock's Big Steaming Bag of Poo".
Get over yourselves, please. Thank you.
Okay, all you young career women out there, let Sooey spin it this way for you: Before you know it, babies grow up and move out and you're at the hospital stealing someone else's baby - BUT - a career is yours forever.
In defence of NAMBLA...
At least it's out of the closet.
An insidious campaign to discredit Chuck Cadman's daughter and widow, coming up. I sure hope they're prepared, because anything and everything is going to be tossed out there into the public realm. Think the RCMP going over to Poland on a fishing expedition (on our dime) for stuff to discredit a man they murdered in cold blood at the Vancouver Airport type stuff.
Of course, there's always Chuck Cadman, himself, they can incriminate. I mean, he must have been on some pretty heavy treatment for the cancer and people say all sorts of stuff when they're ON DRUGS!! So, you know, Dear Reader, everybody could be telling the truth - EXCEPT FOR THE GUY WHO WAS ON DRUGS!!!!!
You know what I'd do if I was Stephen Harper? I'd say, "You're right. We did it. Call an election."
Just to see if the Liberals counter with, "Uh... Well... Hey... It's not THAT big a deal. C'mon. No need for an election. Just... You know... Apologize to the House, or something."
Then? If I was Stephen Harper? I'd say, "No. We did it. And we're glad we did it. Now let's go to the polls."
Just to see if the Liberals counter with, "Oh, no, no, no. No need to go to the polls. Shit happens. No biggie. And think of Chuck Cadman. Would HE have wanted an election? No. No he would not."
Okay. I'm no expert on techno-wizardry, but I'd say when you send James Moore, MP, in to the House to suggest that the tape which has you pretty much admitting that you knew about something illegal going down - was doctored - tells us that you know that we know that knowing about something illegal going down and not doing anything about it is as wrong as if you were there offering up a $1,000,000 bribe to a sitting MP to vote with your Party to bring down the government.
|
