« July 2008 |
Main
| September 2008 »
Say, how about NOT doing that thing you always do in an election campaign of attacking the Liberals - AND ATTACK THE NEW CONSERVATIVES INSTEAD!!!!!
Your supporters will love you for it, believe me. So when a political strategist says at the next powwow, "No, no, no - let's do what we always do and attack the Liberals" - take him out behind the barn and shoot him, please.
For the umpteenth time, that strategy doesn't work, it alienates everyone because it's weird and offputting. It literally creeps voters out. So listen to Sooey (not "that guy" on your political strategy team) and ignore the Liberals and go after the New Conservatives. Please. For the love of all that is godless.
Regardless of Baby-Snatcher Palin's sexist views about women (which make no sense given she's in politics), why is it okay for the media to be equally sexist in the questions it puts to her? I mean, the media is an institution and you'd think along with eradicating institutional racism, we'd be working on sexism, too. Because the argument is being made that Palin puts her holy motherdom out there as a qualification for office so it's fair game for the media to go after her on it.
But is it fair to other female politicians? No, it isn't. It's media sexism and it needs to be stamped out. All kinds of idiots run for political office, it should be up to the media to maintain a standard of behaviour that doesn't stoop to the idiot level in its questioning of their credentials. If a politician held racist views, for instance, would it be okay for the media to ask him racist questions? No. No it wouldn't. C'mon people - wake up to the sexism in media and just say "No More Sexism".
Stephen Harper? Go ahead. Make my day and call an unnecessary election...
Oh, and that Palin chick is smart to go with a "Sex and the Single Girl" look, I think. I mean, imagine it's the day before the election and she's standing over a subway grate in a flowy halter dress and she takes off her glasses and lets down her hair. Eh? Am I right? Slam dunk win for McCain.
I dunno. That stupid idiot might not be as stupid and idiotic as he looks. And acts. And... is...
Hm. Looks like Bill Maher's MILF is actually a GILF. Too funny. How big are the Whoppers in Alaska?
Bigggggg...
No one will admit it in the media because the Left despises the Right regardless and the Right is in love with the old-fashioned political wife, but Cindy McCain is truly a breath of fresh air as far as I'm concerned. What a B-I-T-C-H of a First Lady she'd make, eh? I mean, talk about change. Imagine Cindy the Cunt blowing off some children's charity to meet with her financial advisory team to add another clause to the pre-nup she has with John. You know, because he's an idiot and she's smart. Even I (a left-handed Lefty) can't argue with Cindy's political savvy.
I think she should really piss everybody off and start using a "heart" over the "i" in Cindy.
I used to be a bit of a politico, but I've come to loathe politicians for some reason. Or a lot of reasons. It might be because they're all men, and I'm sick of men running everything. Or it might be because wherever politicians are, the political media follows. And I'm sick of the political media - mostly because it's all male, too, and so yesterday it may as well be a pillbox hat.
Anyway, I guess we've got an election campaign of our own coming up. So get ready for a lot of shameless family pimping. You know, because politicians and families go together like pimps and prostitutes. Say, if I was Liberal leader, I'd ask whatever happened to that $5,000 savings account tax shelter the New Conservatives promised in the last budget. Because you can't get it, you know. I've been to the bank to ask about it. And if I was in the media, I'd ask everybody running their views on abortion. Over and over and over. Until they admitted they're only in politics to save the unborn.
That's about it, though. I mean, if Canadians can't see by now that the New Conservatives are only in government to destroy it, it's hard to care much. I'm okay, Jack. So are my friends and family - none of whom voted for Stephen Harper and his New Conservative Party of Canada.
We're just smart, I guess. I'm not sure how dumb you'd have to be to vote for a government-hating politician who wants to be in government, a family man who pimps his family while he stumps for votes to get a job which will ensure he spends as little time with his family as possible, a one-issue man whose one issue is to force girls and women to give birth to souls for God.
Haha! Too funny. John McCain missed his chance to totally put the screws to Obama by choosing Oprah to be his running mate. But I don't understand why people are confused by his choice of what's-her-name. She seems like a fairly typical Republican to me. Except that she doesn't look like a freak of nature.
Interesting. We have a governing political Party right now that spends gobs of money on newpaper, radio and television ads demonizing the Opposition without dropping the writ for an election. I dunno, but it's pretty clear to me that the New Conservatives don't have much credibility when it comes to dirty tricks with election spending laws. And how did Stephen Harper manage to smile for the camera like that, anyway? Did he roast a low income family over a spit just before his campaign team took his picture?
Do politicians become caricatures or do caricatures become politicians?
Gee, I wonder when the New Conservative Party Government of Canada will release its plan to gut the meat inspection mandate of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency?
The political wife
Lives to sacrifice
Her smile her Party's umbrella
Hail to the consort
With unwavering support
She stands beside her fella
Harper'sDarth,Flanagan'sTheEmperor
Except they're both lying. And they know they're both lying. The New Conservatives aren't out to destroy the Liberals, the Liberals are out to destroy the Liberals. The New Conservatives are out to destroy the Government of Canada. Their sole reason for wanting power is so they can destroy Federalism. And they're doing by attrition. It's working, too, thanks to all those idiots who voted for them.
Still, I hope they put Thomas Flanagan out front to sell the election platform to Canadians. That ought to cost them a few million votes. You go, Prrrofessor!
Okay. I don't blame the New Conservative Party Government of Canada for the listeria poisoning deaths of several Canadians due to tainted Maple Leaf meats, but I guess Tony Clement does or why else would he tell Canadians, "this is an example of our surveillance system working"?
Uh... Okay... So... when it stops working those people will come back to life and you won't be the government anymore?
I dunno but with the McCains, it's always possible John is trying to, well, you know, get Cindy to stand too close to the edge OR maybe Cindy is just doing that thing she does when she makes it look like she should be the McCain running for President and John should be in the loony bin spelling naughty words in his alphabet soup.
By the way, I have rellies like this so I know what of I speak: The reaction we're seeing to Obamamania is called, "Reverse Snobbery". Think Jimmy Carter/Ronald Reagan and local yokels deciding who they're going to vote for, "Golly, I like the stupid soundin' guy, dabnabbit! He's my kind of Prezident!" My advice is - don't watch.
You know what I think? I think we should put even less money into sports in this country. I mean, c'mon. Otherwise, as Rightwingers say about everything else, we're just throwing money at the problem (the problem of not winning enough medals to satisfy Rightwingers, I mean). So, why not strip sports of all funding to toughen up Canadian athletes and REALLY get them ready to win at the next Olympics? It's speed and strenght that'll win us gold medals, not more taxpayer dollars going to fund team outfits and jaunts to competitions. And let's face it, the Americans spend way less money on sports than they do on war and elections and their athletes did great. And forget about competing with the Chinese. London has. I heard some guy on the radio say the next Olympics would be "intimate". Aw. I thought it'd be funny to see 'em bulldozing Buckingham Palace to make for an athletes' village...
My favourite part of the Olympics, every fortyear or whenwhatever the hell it is now, is when people phone in to hate radio stations and CBC to complain about how few medals our athletes won. I mean, oh the irony. Imagine being such a whiny and pathetic malcontent that you actually take the time away from your crosswords to complain about how many gold medals OTHER people didn't win on behalf of your country, you know, the one you despise for its lack of warmongering and domestic shootings. They're always rightwingers, too, you can tell. "We're like that in everything. It's never how we win, it's always how we play the game. Well, I'm sick of it. I want athletic people to win more medals at the Olympic so my dick feels longer." Yaddayaddaboohoo - Yeah, why can't we be more like those clever Americans who win every international dick stretching contest unless it's a war they started, EH?
Pardon me for asking, but why does the New Conservative Party Government of Canada consider musing aloud about calling an election - a "threat"? Really, Canadians are supposed to feel threatened by Democracy now?
Gee, maybe it's New Conservatives who should be wearing electronic bracelets... Pretty scary bunch, if you ask me.
It's ironic, but Chinese citizens who ignore the abuses of their government against dissidents, and old ladies who get in the way of redevelopment projects, remind me a lot of Rightwingers here at home. I mean, Canadian Rightwingers are always so lockstep with the iron fisted methods of their New Conservative government that I can absolutely imagine them informing on dissenters if it meant we'd lose our assets and be sent to re-education camps.
And I can just imagine if they manage to recriminalize abortion. It'll give a whole new meaning to "Neighbourhood Watch".
Subtitled: Canada's Mainstream Media - Always the last to know.
Apparently, thanks to the efforts of a handful of bloggers, (including UnrepentantOldHippie, a Sooey's fave) Canadians who frequent what in Bloggish are known as "Progressive Blogs", now know that the campaign to impeach Chief Justice McLachlin is being led by none other than Dr-by-mail Charles McVety, BFF of PM Stephen Harper, and a half dozen kooks and hangers-on connected to his little Evangelical whirld of cross-eyed civil and human rights deniers and purse-lipped censors.
"Eh, Gawdboy, don' be stupid - China be where da money be."
Sigh. The Old Monster. Never a totalitarian regime too totalitarian for business...
You've really got to hand it to a guy who makes Dr. Brian Day, head of the Canadian Medical Association look like the good guy of Canadian healthcare, so Tony Clement, New Conservative Minister of Health - take a bow. Maybe junkies are still dying and doing drugs in back alleys because there's only one safe injection site like Insite in this big old cold damp rock of a country. Did you ever think of that, Tony? Eh? Well? Didja? Hunh?
And who are these families you insist junkies don't belong around, anyway? What's with this tired cliche New Conservatives insist upon that only certain families are deserving of government services, while other families must move aside allowing the largesse to pass over them and on to those deemed worthy? Junkies have families, too, asshole. And it's really not part of the Canadian government's mandate to pronounce on who it deems worthy of life and who it doesn't, last time I checked. But, of course, you Fascists have pretty much reinvented the country to resemble an American Evangelical Bible Camp, haven't you.
By the way, Tony Clement? Death is inevitable for all of us. Your job is to improve healthcare services - for ALL Canadians, not to decide who should die first.
Resign. You actually stand out as a disgrace in this truly awful government.
I've noticed a favourite Internet past-time of posters is to dream up great names for bands. Now, personally, I think calling your band "Jesus H. Christ" or "Dagnabbit" would have been funnier'n "Holy Fuck" but that's just me - ahead of the "What's Hep" curve - (And I'm ssuming, of course, that "Fuck Shit Damn" has already been taken.)
Anyway, how about some yuksters with musical talent out there in Smartassland start up a totally squaresville country & western band to appeal to New Conservatives sensibilities called... say... "Family Values - Unplugged" - and then, once they've nailed a grant, change their name to "Government Funded" and go all gangsta rap on the government's big white ass.
By the way, I have a great one here - gratis - for the up-and-coming band that really wants to stick it to the man with a naughty name: "Irregardless and the Grammarians". I know, I know - Sooey, WHY are you giving it away?
I'd say a Parliament the Government of the day is calling "dysfunctional" is clearly a Parliament that is working very well. Very well, indeed.
Enlighten me, please - how is the Catholic Church (for instance) any less of a cult than the Church of Scientology?
But speaking of cults: RunningForCultLeader Let us pray they're lying...
When you really stop and think about it, "my country right or wrong" is a blindingly amoral sentiment to hold in these days of the Global Village. But, of course, no one ever does - stop and think about it, I mean.
I just had a eureka moment due to a comment I made on another blog (Antonia Zerbisias' "Broadsides") regarding women and equality. I had posted "equality will be reached when women stop giving a rat's ass what society thinks and start doing whatever the hell they want".
But then I realized, nope, that's asking women to deny a whack load of evolutionary reality telling us to put our security concerns first - all of which are regarding men and the fear that a giant plastic hand - i.e. "Gawd" - will descend from the sky and swat us dead if we don't. I mean, even in nature where life is supposed to make sense, where species are supposed to want to survive through their young, the mother polar bear takes off with the youngun's to live their lives on the run from the father polar bear, who, now that he knows there are tender and easy pickin's out on the frozen tundra, well, can't be trusted not to snack on the chillin's 'til they're all gone.
(I don't know a single human mother who hasn't, at one time or another, had to hide the next day's meal behind other food in the fridge from a marauding partner, either, but that's not really my point today.)
So, it struck me that I've got it backwards and that it's MEN who should "stop giving a rat's ass what society thinks and start doing whatever the hell they want". Then, when women see that a giant plastic hand doesn't (unless it does...) descend from the sky to swat them dead, women will feel safe copying men. (Unless what men want is for a giant plastic hand to descend from the sky to swat women dead, but that's not really my point today, either.)
And why should women take ALL the progressive risks for none of the credit, anyway? Let's face it - men aren't happy. Especially the ones who play by society's rules - get married, buy a house in the suburbs, have kids, buy an SUV, all the while working in office jobs they don't like much either and counting the years until retirement. They're miserable. What's worse is, they blame women for their misery. Especially Feminists. Because while women may feel they have more choices nowadays (yay!) - men just feel like they have to do more work than ever before. Because it's not enough to bring home the bacon, anymore - they have to cook it on Mother's Day now, too. Besides, the old ball & chain can buy her own bacon. Meanwhile, women spend all their time trying to get men to at least PRETEND this is the life they want because, of course, marriage is women's work. Society dictates very clearly that it is up to women to make marriage work, and if you can't, well, don't blame society for your marriage failing, you who put everything but hubby's happiness who doesn't want to be in this shared life any more than you do - first.
Well, guess what, everybody? Marriage doesn't work because men don't really want to be married. They feel railroaded, that none of the decisions being made in their lives are their own. Indeed, not only do they not want to be married, they don't want to be living in well-appointed houses iin the suburbs with two kids and a mortgage and housework after office work and, oh yeah, a wife who isn't all that happy, either - and therefore doesn't have sex with Mr. Miserable at the top of her to do list for the evening.
And yet, men keep tying the knot.
Well, I say it's time for men to stop giving a rat's ass what society thinks and start doing whatever the hell they want. Which would not only free up women from taking all the blame for men being miserable, not to mention free up a lot of time wasted trying to make men NOT miserable, but which would totally give women the go ahead to do what THEY want, too. And that may well be living in the suburbs, etc, etc, much as they are now - except without wasting their lives trying to make men want their lives, too.
AllWhiteFrontierCentreForPublicPolicy
Except that reality also tells us, Robert Fulford, defender of something that has never existed, if we're paying attention and not just parrotting rightwing ideological claptrap about Capitalism and Free Markets in Paradise, is that a strong central Canadian government that regulates the market protects Canadian citizens from the totalitarianism of American corporate monoliths - which is what we're really talking about here - not that Utopian alternate universe rightwing nuts like you, Robert Fulford, imagine we'd be living in if we allowed American corporate monoliths to run the world instead of governments - which is what Conservative governments in the pockets of those same American corporate monoliths are allowing to happen - with the help of their in-house organ, the MSM.
By the way, the Research Board of the FCPP that seeks to broaden our understanding, blahblahblah? All white, all male save for one lone former government lady from New Zealand - with a substantial private sector practice in corporate governance. Gawd. When is it ever not going to be like shooting fish in a barrel with you rightwing pundits, Robert Fulford, is my "reality" question of the day?
And Robert Fulford? This is reality, too - when the Americans need our water? They WILL come and steal it. Except our dumbassed Conservative government will have previously signed a deal ALLOWING them to steal it first - so it won't even be stealing. So yeah, drink up while its legally ours, Mr. Reality.
I'm really enjoying not caring about the Olympics this cycle. But there was a comment on another blog that got me thinking about the sexism of it all. It had to do with beach volleyball and how the women are in bikinis - which is obviously the main attraction to beach volleyball - while the men are attired more athletically.
Around the same time, I saw a photograph of a young woman who had just turned 18. She was posing topless in what publishers like to call a "family newspaper" (you know, like Hooters is a family restaurant where the wait staff just "love children" on account of their big breasts that families TOTALLY get off on because it reminds us all of a simpler time when we were breastfeeding instead of eating out in pedestrian restaurants that cost just as much as good ones) and if it had been anywhere else, somewhere nudie pics appropriate, I'd have thought, "Wow, spectacular - and REAL!"
Still, her breasts were real so maybe that's more important than most of the news, that there's a Western woman aspiring to be a nudie pics worker who hasn't had breast butchery, thereby endangering her health and well-being, to give her breasts that huge unnatural look that men who deep down hate women enjoy so much.
And beach volleyballers look amazing, their bodies all buff WITH curves - a tricky feat for any female athlete because working out burns fat and that's what breasts are, afterall, lovely bits of fat. Now, when I was younger, I would have taken the view that the organizers behind the beach volleyball bikini uniforms for women were just being sexist - and maybe some of them are - but with age comes a renewed appreciation for the human body and I realized that if I was a beach volleyballer and I looked like those women do - I'd want to show off my physique.
Because athletes are their bodies and women have that extra appeal in that we're just more fun to look at. And I don't think the sexism of the ages should be allowed to intrude on the fact that both sexes, from a spectator point of view, appreciate the female form - naturally - in a way we don't so much want to see men in speedoes no matter how spectacular their pecs and abs.
So, I'm reclaiming female form appreciation from the misogynists-at-large who have made a grotesque mockery of it to say there's nothing sexist in beach volleyballers playing in itsy bitsy teenie weenie yellow polka dot bikinis when viewed from the perspective that - hey, we've just got it so why not flaunt. It's spectator sports we're talking about here, afterall.
To be more precise - BEACH VOLLEYBALL!! - ferchrissakes!!!!!
So, how come the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board isn't questioning a 6% conviction rate? It's always a problem with women, isn't it.
IfYou'reGoingToGetRaped,Don'tDrink
That's the title of one of my favourite books and it sprang to mind just now when I was in the shower (normally, my life is much less scripted, but far more routine) and I realized that the world is currently being run by thugs.
If you elected one of Mike Harris' Little Shits to federal office - please kick yourself in the ass for me. Thank you. Because soon the New Conservative Party Government of Canada will be stripping the Canada Food Inspection Agency of its mandate to inspect meat, meat products (ew), animal feed and commercial seeds. Gee, I wonder where it got that bright idea? Because yeah - food. Why inspect it? Afterall, what else are Canadian TAXPAYERS going to eat? Corporate tax breaks?
Something tells me this latest bit of arbitrary censorship by way of arts funding has a lot to do with those electronic bracelets for parolees that Stockwell Day is trumpeting from podiums across the country.
An election is coming and the New Conservatives are speaking to you, rightwing nut Canadians. Please pay attention, sane Canadians. Because this is all just for public consumption, privately the New Conservatives are dismantling the country.
Why, the New Conservative Party Government of Canada, of course:
Yabbut,IfWeDidn'tCheat,How'dWeWin?
I dunno. Is it me? Or is Yang Peiyi actually cuter'n Lin Miaoke?
YouBeTheJudge
You know what the New Conservatives are doing while they're in government, don't you? They're taking money out of the system so that it can't function properly. That way, when their in-house media organs tell Canadians they want more privatization (as discovered through studies and polls and random samplings), New Conservatives and their in-house media organs - both - will think we don't know they're lying through their teeth.
The down side of all this, aside from the deteriorating government services we're currently and will be forever experiencing, is that taxes won't go down, either. We'll just have crappy government services with a bunch of rightwing ideologues trying to run the country having wrecked it.
By the way, keep a lookout for all those parolees running around with electric bracelets on that nobody will be monitoring. Maybe that could be our new national sport to replace... hey... how's our Lacrosse team doing at the Olympics? Or has it lost to Togoland...
Oh - and while I'm here, where's that "Tax Sheltered Savings Account" promised in the last budget? I went to my bank today, all eager to sign up and guess what? There's no such thing. Not that I was surprised. Dumbfuckers probably can't afford it now.
Just ask Dudley George or the Montebello protestors, or anybody currently being sued by the New Conservative Party Government of Canada. Anyway, for what it's worth:
BecauseWeWouldNeverCapitalizeOnIt
We are heartened by this independent, personal approach. Too often, the first instinct in such cases is to demand government do something: block the controversial performance, ban the protesters, launch a hate-speech investigation. But ultimately, nothing the state could have done would have been half as effective or satisfying as having 300 or 400 ordinary Winnipeggers take a few hours out of their Saturday afternoons to stand in quiet solidarity with the friends and relatives of Tim McLean, to let them know others care and to spare those already grieving the added indignity of a few extremist lunatics capitalizing on one man's grisly death.
Uh... did we mention that hate speech investigation? Oh. Yes. We did.
Smalldeadanimals Duh,MeRightwing feature of the day:
Freedumb!GetcherFreedumb!Only$29.99!OnlineNow!
And now a word from the author who shows up in the Comments Section (#52 - house of cards anyone?) after lots of brain poppingly ironical comments by the most luvable group of lunkheads you'll ever have the joy of reading:
Hi, Howard Rotberg, here. I thank all the good people who are giving messages of support. I have been living through a 4 year nightmare where the civil rights organizations and even the Jewish organizations wouldn't talk to me. Most of the mainstream media has ignored the story, because it didn't fit. Think about that.
I am waging this battle for our children (I have 3) and our grandchildren, who shouldn't have to live in the kind of nightmare world that will arrive if people like me don't take a stand.
The book is still available from the publisher directly by emailing teresa@brantcord.com.
Also the publisher is now going to a third printing and is putting it on Amazon, but it may take 2 weeks. In the meantime, let Sorya Ingrid Gaulin and Heather Reisman what you think of them.
I've been riding the bus to and from work all summer and I just have to ask, "Wtf is up with all those unconscionably stupid people sitting on the bus giddily jabbering away on their gawddamned cell phones to their braindead friends and families as if they aren't sitting on a bus surrounded by unwilling eavesdroppers who really just want to grab their cell phones and shove them up their butts - sideways?"
Today I came home to another thick glossy flyer from Rogers stuffed in my mailbox, as opposed to a taxpayer funded New Conservative Party, er, Government of Canada electioneering pamphlet. What's aneurism inducing is that it's almost always one or the other, it's either Rogers or those Nazis on the Hill - with neither being solicited by me. What's uber annoying is that they somehow manage to take up all the space in my mailbox, too - to the point that I'm worried they're going to one day crowd out a birthday card from my mother or somesuch welcome piece of mail that might contain a cheque.
So yeah. I get about 3 legitimate pieces of mail per month and the rest of my mail is either from Rogers or the New Conservative Party, er, Government of Canada. And I want it stopped. I really do. In my opinion, it should be against the law for Rogers to harrass customers the way it does - especially since its service calls, if you already have a Rogers product, are pretty much the direct opposite of its dinner time calls to browbeat you into purchasing more Rogers products.
All those flyers are being delivered by well paid Canada Post letter carriers, too - only to be thrown in the recycling bin when I unlock my mailbox and haul out all my home phone/bundle deals/cell phone/more bundle deals flyers. Imagine the effect Rogers has on recycling. I mean - we pay for all that, too, all that recycling. While Rogers just ups its fees to its existing customers to pay for its unsolicited advertising that we throw out in a seething rage every day after work, hearts pounding, blood pressures rising, brains exploding...
The New Conservative pamphleteering? Again, we're paying for that shite. Yes. We know the Liberals suck, but you suck worse because you think we need to have our mailboxes stuffed with crappy pamphlets mailed out on our dime by lowlife fuckwits telling us the Liberals suck. Seriously, I want somebody tasered over this. In my solid citizen opinion, it's akin to criminal harrassment. And yet, neither Rogers nor the New Conservative Party, er, Government of Canada will ever be called to account for the money they waste, the pollution they cause, the sudden brain aneurisms they induce. They'll just raise fees or taxes - by further reducing their services to customers and citizens.
I heard on the news this evening, Bush Jr tell China, "God is love".
I'm trying to imagine the translation of that one to the masses.
I dunno. I'm starting to feel like an accessory to Totalitarianism thanks to our publicly funded broadcaster's enthusiastic extolling of the virtues of the Beijing Olympics and its insistence on keeping politics out of what is an undeniably political venue. It's one thing to pay homage to the elite in international sport (simple one dimensional creatures that they are), quite another to promote China's new Olympic legacy, built as it is on the brutal repression of human rights, the Olympic Committee winking and nodding all the way to the next orgy of excess.
If ever the right had an argument against the public funding of a state broadcaster - CBC's coverage of the Beijing Olympics is it.
Why wouldn't he lie? Bill Clinton went into a Democratic campaign with a truck load of them and still won the nomination and went on to win the Presidency. Twice.
Meanwhile, what should be at issue here is the $100,000 his galpal's firm was paid to produce four web videos for his campaign. Because that's not just the private matter of an affair, it's a public matter of a firm living off the avails of prostitution.
Who are we to pretend we won't tolerate RevRend Fred Phelps? We elect people who hold his views to Parliament, give them Orders of Canada, read their columns in newspapers, watch their panel discussions on television, and protect their Churches and Mosques from prosecution under our hate laws, ferchrissakes. Why single out RevRend Phelps? With the protection we slaveringly give it, Religion needs more exposure, not less.
As everyone knows, I'm no fan of George W. Bush, but I'm even less of a fan of Vladimir Putin, so I found it really disheartening to realize that Moron Jr.'s half-hearted admonishment of Russia's barbarous attack on Georgia... well... when even the President of the United States seems to recognize he doesn't have much (i.e. any) moral leverage over a hulking rotting cesspool of official lawlessness like Russia, I guess that old millenium stint as the world's policeman is pretty much over. Buh-bye, good ol' USA.
... I was re-thinking prostitution the other night. Not from the angle that I believe, regardless of the fact that it's a legitimate business transaction that is nonetheless exploitive of women and caters to the male dominant notion that sex is a human need (as in - women do not need sex, so, really - prostitution exists only for men), but from the angle that, if practiced safely (near to impossible, in my opinion, however) I can't reason why society would think women would be angered about their partners' use of prostitution services.
Afterall, if sex is to be considered a need for men, then why should marriage or any other kind of monogamous relationship be a barrier to it? Afterall, we eat out, we sleep in hotels - why is buying sex the big need bad?
Well, I believe it's because no matter how much we rationalize prostitution, there's simply no way around the fact that prostitutes, regardless of the other fact of payment, put their lives in danger beyond the compensation received to serve a need that men have, but that women really don't. Both sexes need to eat and sleep, but only men seem to need sex to survive.
Or do they? Because isn't sex and men just another myth of Patriarchy that we continue to cater to as if it is fact? I mean, a lot of time, money and resources go into policing prostitution, in spite of its illegality, because we want to believe that sex is an actual need of men, and without prostitutes, they would sexually assault their fellow female citizens who aren't prostitutes - in that same way some Islamic countries pretend that covering up women is for their own good because, otherwise, men would be driven by the need for sex to assault them.
That, as we know, is just political rationalization for corrupt behaviour and typical of Patriarchal thinking in that male failings are somehow the responsibility of women to avoid. So why do we pretend prostitution is different? And if it were to be legalized (which would make it much safer for prostitutes) would we be addressing in any way this myth that sex is a human need and not just another way of using women's bodies to cater to men?
Well, no. We wouldn't. So why isn't the discussion about the failings of men instead of the benefits (or not) of prostitution?
...When he picks John Edwards to be his running mate...
You know, I think I actually feel safer having regular Canadian citizens on the RCMP's call list:
Tim!GrabTheWife&Kids&AFewPlacards&GetOverToParliamentHill-DemonstrationInProgress!"
Factory farm practices are pretty horrific, aren't they...
LongAnswer
Short answer: We're smarter.
And yet, you'll notice in these God-filled times that men continue to be the standard to which women are compared and found to be the lesser of the species. When, oh when will it be the other way around? By how much do women have to overachieve compared to men before we're the standard bearer for humanity, you ask? A good question for which I bet every religious text has an answer at the ready.
Okay, I think our State Broadcaster shouldn't have gone to China because it seems to be so at one with the Glory of the Beijing Olympics that even I'm starting to wonder about those Pinko Commies trying to brainwash the rest of us with some sort of telepathic Communist message from Chairperson Mao, "The needs of the many are outweighed by the needs of the one".
No wait. That was Spock. Wow. Space. The final Communist frontier...
I notice PETA is getting a lot of outraged media coverage for its most recent Poor Taste Campaign in which it attempts to use the awful death of Tim Maclean to advertise the slaughter practices on factory farms.
Fair enough, no one has to print the ads and it's not like people who disapprove of PETA's tactics - already - will be any more shocked than usual. (They lost me with the throwing of red paint on fur coat wearers, just as Greenpeace lost me with its obsessive campaign against the seal hunt. But I'm not English Royalty so people and jobs still come before animals in my rights hierarchy.)
What's more disturbing to me than the media outrage against PETA, however, is its free pass for one RevRend Phelps and fambly as they plan to demonstrate at Tim Maclean's funeral in the name of God. You know, on behalf of Holy Entity rights. Not to mention the free pass our hate laws give to anybody who inserts the name of God into the campaign.
So yeah - wise up PETA and next time tell everybody it's God's word we're supposed to be taking on animal rights - not just the word of a bunch of assholes with remarkably offensive timing.
Honestly, it's uncanny how Christians and other religious zealots complain so much about EVERYTHING humanist in these not-unGodly-enuff-times while ignoring the fact that, thanks to our Judeo-Christian roots (hate-based as they apparently are - especially towards women and homosexuals) which still inform our laws, they get a free "In The Name Of God" pass, even while actively inciting hatred against living breathing Canadian citizens.
I couldn't agree more:
JonathanKayAsks,"ButWhatOfThePrintMedia?!"
Although, I'd have gone with a more relevant expose (computer, please insert accent over the "e" to pronounce "expozay") than the cyber world scourge of Internet trolls to illustrate my point, since turning off one's comment section is as easy as picking up freebie newspapers that compete with subscription newspapers (sigh, newspaper owners - whaddarya gonna do? - I mean, CanWest competes with itself using freebies) - NOT that there's anything much worth reading in a freebie newspaper that you can't also read on a blog, of course.
I couldn't agree more:
EzraVents
The other day, my beau and I were walking the dog along the canal when we saw something quite - quite. Indeed, we saw white people having fun. They were in a regatta, of course, motoring down the canal on a Sunday afternoon, celebrating an historic event unknown to us but which clearly had some import with regards to our cultural heritage.
White people. Having fun. Take that Caribana.
One thing I don't quite understand about the War on Terror is how anyone can argue it's done anything good for the United States. I mean, I suppose you could argue it's messed up the countries of its perceived enemies, and that a lose/lose is a kind of win, but I don't know why you would.
Hm... I think I see where CanWest got the idea for CBC Watch...:
Don'tTakeOurWordForIt-JustAskVicToews
By the way, if you're curious as to who's behind UN Watch:
That'sRight,Republicans
Have you ever noticed that when bad things happen in Canada there's a hue and cry from New Conservatives to return us all to a simpler time when we had a much smaller population of people, primarily from the British Isles, and professional people (including religious leaders) had power and authority over all the Joe Six-Packs and Sally Housecoats across the Dominion - because they had more money? And our government said that it was good?
What's slightly mind-boggling to me is that many of those New Conservatives ARE Joe Six-Packs and Sally Housecoats. I mean, what is it about having civil rights that aren't dependent on income that frightens New Conservatives so much that they're constantly wanting to give them up to government and authority in return for tax cuts for the rich or the illusion of security or just so other Joe Six-Packs and Sally Housecoats can't have them?
Ezra Levant seems to find equivalency in Kenneth Hotz flying a plane over Toronto pulling a banner reading "Jesus Sucks" to the ongoing media bias against Muslims in our post 9/11 New World order of a War on Terrorism - although he seems to think Dean Skoreyko, who has filed a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal against Kenneth Hotz, will have his complaint tossed out because the stunt was aimed at Christians, not Muslims.
But Christians are a majority and hold all the real power in this country - still - so my guess is that the complaint will be thrown out because it is unlikely to expose Christians to "hatred or contempt" in the sense that it would have any impact at all on the majority religion that continues to run our country as if it didn't protect elements in it as Patriarchal and backward as any other religion - including Islam. (Although, if Conservative Christians actually followed the teachings of Christ as opposed to the partisan politics of Conservative politicians and religious leaders, Christianity would be much less offensive to minorities, such as Feminists...)
Oh, and NOT that I believe for a second in the right of any citizen to take any other citizen to a Human Rights Commission over a perceived speech offence, Neil MacDonald, even though I am a Feminist and on the Left.
And what about a "Mohammed Sucks" banner being trailed from a plane flying over Toronto? Would a complaint against the perp of such a stunt go forward at a Human Rights Commission? Well, Muslims are a minority in this country - a minority which has been exposed to ongoing "hatred and contempt" by such mainstream press as Macleans magazine (our supposed national newsmagazine) - and since even a complaint against it was thrown out by a HRC as not meeting the criteria necessary for a complaint to proceed, my guess is no.
That taxpayer dollars are being spent investigating these tit-for-tat complaints is what should annoy Canadians - but I guess that's what we've decided free speech is all about in this country - proving you haven't violated speech rights to a fellow citizen of another religion, sexual orientation, political point of view...
In times of horror what else is there to do on the Internet but start a blog entry off with a joke. Several years ago I saw a wildly funny comedienne ('tis true, Christopher Hitchens - and she was cute as a button, too) do a bit on the bus: "So I end up having to take the bus because I'm a comedienne. Anyway, I get to the bus station, take a look around, and immediately grab the phone and call 'America's Most Wanted' - I FOUND EVERYBODY!"
I guess she must've given birth to a dead baby after that performance because I've never seen her again (for you readers not in the know, Christopher Hitchens believes women can't be funny because dead babies are a hard comedy sell - just ask Oscar Wilde).
But cereally, I think I have the solution to preventing such horrific and random acts of bus violence as stabbing and decapitating fellow passengers - just have rightwing internutters ride the bus with their laptops handy. Those heroic bloggers and commenters know exactly what to do in times such as these which are a direct result of Feminism and the Liberal Media: USE THE SHIFT KEY AND LOTS OF EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm no security expert, but if a Foreign Affairs investigation into Berniergate has decided that the only problem with Maxime having left a briefcase full of classified documents behind in Julie Couillard's apartment is that she took a peek at them, maybe the New Conservative Government of Canada should issue its Cabinet Ministers with booby (heheh) trapped briefcases.
And really, how classified were the documents, anyway. I mean, c'mon - it's Foreign Affairs, not Revenue Canada.
Okay, people. Let me make this easy: In Canada, people on the Right are all those fuckwits who believe Conservative politicians when they tell them it's the people even lower'n 'em what're screwing 'em over. Vote for us and we'll see to it that they get screwed over so hard they won't even think of screwing you over - ever again.
Meanwhile, people on the Left know that it's the people above us (financially speaking ONLY of course) who use Conservative politicians to screw us ALL over - and reduce government to an inoperable mess. That's why only people on the Left should be allowed to vote, if you really stop and think about it. But there you go, it's a private ballot - in spite of WalMart, which is currently waging what it seems to believe is an effective political intimidation campaign against its workers by telling them a vote for Obama is tantamount to a vote against WalMart management.
McCain has a combover.
That is all. Or, at least, it should be.
|
