Friday, October 9, 2015

Barbaric Cultural Practices

So, just the other day, amoral psychopaths Chris Alexander and Kellie Leitch announced the establishment of a tip-line which would allow Old Stock Canadians to inform the authorities about the barbaric behaviour of their swarthy immigrant neighbours. Jolly good! Tally-ho! Wot? (A journalist asked the RCMP how it would work and he was told that if your Muslim neighbour was honour-killing his wife or daughter, to call 911. Other police officials would not comment.)

[If you have an Old Stock Canadian neighbour who is just beating or killing his wives and daughters for other reasons, don't bother the tip line. Just call the police the usual way.]

Anyhooo, ... THIS has been in the US news recently:
KABUL, Afghanistan — In his last phone call home, Lance Cpl. Gregory Buckley Jr. told his father what was troubling him: From his bunk in southern Afghanistan, he could hear Afghan police officers sexually abusing boys they had brought to the base.“At night we can hear them screaming, but we’re not allowed to do anything about it,” the Marine’s father, Gregory Buckley Sr., recalled his son telling him before he was shot to death at the base in 2012. He urged his son to tell his superiors. “My son said that his officers told him to look the other way because it’s their culture.”
And, why don't we dredge all this up from the Canadian newsfeeds from a few years back:
Canadian soldiers serving in Afghanistan have been ordered by commanding officers "to ignore" incidents of sexual assault among the civilian population, says a military chaplain who counsels troops returning home with post-traumatic stress disorder.
The chaplain, Jean Johns, says she recently counselled a Canadian soldier who said he witnessed a boy being raped by an Afghan soldier, then wrote a report on the allegation for her brigade chaplain.
In her March report, which she says should have been advanced "up the chain of command," Johns says the corporal told her that Canadian troops have been ordered by commanding officers "to ignore" incidents of sexual assault. Johns hasn't received a reply to the report.
While several Canadian Forces chaplains say other soldiers have made similar claims, Department of National Defence lawyers have argued Canada isn't obliged to investigate because none of the soldiers has made a formal complaint, says a senior Canadian officer familiar with the matter.

Schouten’s allegations that Afghans were sexually abusing children at a Canadian base near Kandahar made headlines in 2008 but his claims were dismissed earlier this year by military investigators as unfounded.
He is, however, not alone in voicing his concerns.
Defence Department records show military police were upset about such incidents but were told not to interfere.
Army officers also met in the summer/fall of 2007 to discuss the issue of Afghan security personnel “having anal sex with young boys” but their main concern was the media would somehow find out.
Others in the military note they were told such practices were an age-old part of Afghan culture. One soldier who emailed the Citizen stated he served at the same base at another time and troops had orders to stop any rapes. But he also noted they were told the practise of “Man Love Thursdays,” as it was called, involved consenting Afghans and no one was raped by older men. The children involved were given small gifts or money in return for sex, soldiers say.
Schouten, however, questions whether a five or six-year old child, or even an 11-year-old, can consent. “The Canadian Forces wants people to think it’s a cultural thing, that everyone is doing it, because it takes the onus of responsibility off them to stop it,” he said.
At the time, our illegitimate prime minister, stephen harper, was so shocked and appalled by these reports that he immediately set-up an inquiry to take two years to investigate them. The inquiry eventually concluded that our troops, "Canada's Best," ... Those heroic young men and women representing the Maple Leaf overseas, gritty, determined, intelligent, ... well, apparently they've all got shit-for-fucking-brains. Apparently they see child rape where there isn't child rape. Apparently the half-naked boy lying dead on the ground with part of his intestines pulled out of his anus wasn't raped at all.

Either that or the inquiry was a cover-up. And, given the fact that US soldiers are complaining about exactly the same thing as our soldiers were, I'm more prepared to think it was a cover-up. Orchestrated from the very top by stephen harper.

So, ... speaking of barbaric cultural practices? Isn't it the case that the harpercons are singling out an entire group of Canadians as being "barbarians" and asking other Canadians to spy on them? But when it comes to the outright, out in the open, raping of children by our supposed allies in Afghanistan, the harpercons were more than happy to turn a blind eye. To enable this. To lend our soldiers' courage and blood to defend it. (As well as their psychological well-being.)

Everyone knows that stephen harper doesn't give a shit for women's rights. he obviously doesn't give a fuck about genuine oppression. All it is is that the way some Muslim women dress is different. It makes him uncomfortable. And, more importantly, he knows that this discomfort is shared by other Canadians. he's also dimly aware that the practice of covering-up, sometimes up to veiling a woman's face, has something to do with misogyny. So he plays that card. But he doesn't care. Just as he doesn't really care about honour killings. Or female circumcision. Or child rape in Afghanistan. Or mass starvation. Or refugees fleeing war-zones.

It's all just fodder to be manipulated for political gain to help him stay in power and fleece us all on behalf of the capitalist beast.

Thursday, October 8, 2015

The Tragedy of Dana

Now, here's the thing: The Mound of Sound has every right to be horrified at the significance of global warming. He knows more than I do about it. According to David Suzuki, only the Green Party platform appears to take the problem as seriously as it deserves to be. That's why MoS is voting Green. And good for him.

I first took issue with him though, when he decided to pompously and self-righteously accuse anyone thinking of voting for any other non-harper party as being complete moral failures, and, in fact, immoral monsters. People who couldn't make themselves believe that Green Party support in their area would quintuple and make negligible the difficulties of our first-past-the-post electoral system, and who therefore thought they'd vote for the most likely anti-harper contender were evil people, condemning the MoS's grandchildren to blah, blah, blah.

Thankfully, thanks to the spanking I administered to him, he's stopped that nonsense.

But then, sadly, having abandoned his "all or nothing" mentality, he's decided to (as an ex-Liberal) lecture all the "dippers" about how "GASP!" the NDP has abandoned principles for power! It's attacking the Liberals instead of harper! Mulcair is angry and has a beard!! Mulcair is a dictator!!!

When all of these accusations (aside from the beard, and maybe the angry thing) could apply to Trudeau as well. I mean, if he really doesn't give a shit who wins, why should he revel in the evil that is the NDP and its tyrannical despotic leader Angry Tom With the Beard (SUPER GASP! HE SAYS HE'LL TRY TO ABOLISH THE SENATE!!!! Wait, ... what???) ? If he's truly indifferent, why reduce himself to being a lying, hypocritical partisan hack? I don't know. Maybe because he's a stupid asshole?

Now, from time-to-time I've complained here about the tiresome "Scotian." His mind went off the rails years ago and he's just positively swoonful over the dreamy Liberal Party of Canada because don't you know he was called a "Cassandra" when he predicted blah, blah, blah. And his wife used to be a hard-boiled dipper but now she boils over with anger when you mention blah, blah, blah. And (like the MoS) Scotian believes in the lie that if it weren't for the saintly Paul Martin, Canada would be run by the IMF today. All of this delivered in densely-packed, multi-paragraph tirades. (Oh yeah! One example of the depths of his fanaticism; stephen harper once blathered that the Japanese tsunami tragedy was a sign that we have to keep his steady hand on Canada's economic tiller. People were trashing harper for that bit of nauseating self-serving drivel, but somehow Scotian took it as an opportunity to bash Tom Mulcair, for reasons that escape me.)

I've given Scotian the challenge of addressing any of my criticisms here, with the proviso that he take no more than four sentences to actually get to the fucking point and then stay on the points and argue with them. I notice he hasn't. Instead he's back at MoS's place lying about my ad hominem attacks.

Which brings me to MoS & Scotian's partner in crime, Dana. And Dana's case is particularly serious and I want to address it seriously. (I've actually been treating ALL of this seriously. MoS's self-righteous hypocrisy and his FUCKING LYING, Scotian's inability to do anything but interminable whining pomposity. But Dana I'll treat at length here. In the comments of the MoS piece that was, for me, the straw that broke the camel's back, and where my criticisms have been mucked about by Scotian, Dana says the following:
In 2006 both The Kelowna Accord and the National Early Childhood Education Program had been successfully negotiated and were being finalized. 
At that time the NDP had a choice. They could have supported both of these worthy endeavours, which were long held and articulated NDP priorities, and assisted the Martin minority government in bringing them to fruition. 
Or they could have supported the Harper Conservatives who they knew full well were deeply opposed to both and would immediately destroy both programs should they gain the opportunity. 
The NDP chose to align themselves with the party they knew would destroy the programs. 
That was unforgivable then and it remains so now. 
And it's become worse since. The NDP now supports arms sales to repressive regimes, for just one example. 
I used to be the pre-rally protest and labour song guy on the stage at the old Trianon Ballroom in Regina back in the day. I've been a party supporter since my teens and I'm 67 now. 
I'll have nothing to do with them anymore.
Now then, the Kelowna Accord and the National Childcare program, ... yes. Apparently good things from "Mr. Dithers." The latter one had been promised in 19-fucking and-93, but better late than never I suppose. Especially in the third year of a minority government. The Kelowna Accord? A (too late) death-bed conversion for the Liberal Party that had happily presided over DECADES of neglect and poverty on First Nations reserves, together with the [Progressive] Conservatives. I suppose that was going to have been a good thing too.

But I don't see this as the good work of a good man brought down by the vile, self-serving Jack Layton. I see these things as two means whereby the greatest enemy of the welfare-state to date was seeking to do something to reverse the ten years of austerity, rising inequality, devastation to health care, wholesale looting of the Unemployment Insurance fund, insane imperialism and enabling of right-wing provincial premiers to themselves attack medicare and education, that preceded these two programs.

I have to tell you, by 2003, I was heartily sick of the Liberals and their right-wing bullshit. Paul Martin bragged about reducing the federal state's economic contributions to 1950's levels. Fact.

Layton had a choice? Why, yes he did! AND SO DID PAUL MARTIN! In a goddamned minority-government situation, Paul "Austerity" Martin could have bit the bullet and agreed with Layton's request that he stop the creeping privatization of our health care system. Do you grasp this? Layton was asking Martin that if he were serious about these two proposals and wanted to see them implemented; if he wanted to preserve his government and win the chance to amend his track record of abusive austerity, that he had to do one more thing.

And Martin consciously and deliberately refused.

What do Liberals want? Praise to the skies for some progressive legislation while they commit to wholesale neo-liberalism everywhere else? Like Kathleen Wynne with her "progressive budget" campaign which is followed by selling Ontario Hydro, declaring war on the teacher's unions, and continued abuses of the First Nations. According to Liberals, we're supposed to be grateful for the occasional crumbs that fall out of their pockets (whereas billions fall out of their pockets for the wealthy and the well-connected).

Then, Dana tries to make opposition to Paul Martin's destruction of medicare as somehow being alignment with the Conservatives. The sheer idiocy of it. The NDP believes that the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives is negligible. Therefore, voting down a Liberal fuckwad like Paul Martin, who deliberately refused to stop de-funding Canada's national health insurance program, is simply that: Voting down a Liberal fuckwad. The goal was to weaken the Liberals and give the NDP more power, not to elevate stephen harper to the PM.

Dana should remember that the NDP has always been opposed to the Liberals. For decades before 2003. It was in all the newspapers.

But, finally, Dana gets around to the NDP's lurch to the centre, Mulcair's dreadful foreign policy thinking, and I agree with him. Search this blog. I'm not a fan of Mulcair. I despise the lurch to the centre as misguided, self-destructive and stupid. But let's continue:
I used to be the pre-rally protest and labour song guy on the stage at the old Trianon Ballroom in Regina back in the day. I've been a party supporter since my teens and I'm 67 now. I'll have nothing to do with them anymore.
And here we come to something very serious. Dana was a long-time social democrat, labour song guy. He's disgusted with the rightward turn of the NDP. So what does he do? Aligns himself with a former Liberal hack, who obviously still carries a torch for the Liberal Party. Because the Liberal Party never attacks the NDP. The Liberal Party never puts power before principles. The Liberal Party never voted for rotten Conservative Party legislation. The truest champion of the anti-harper team is the Liberal Party of Canada.  [Puke.]

But both of these guys have decided to throw their main support behind the Green Party of Canada. Because in maybe 50 years (if our democracy, or even our civilization last that long), then the Greens can become successful enough that they care about pissing-off an entire province because it might be the difference between power and irrelevance. But while both these guys are still alive they can bathe in the soothing waters of moral purity.

Here's the thing. I'm on record as stating I don't care who beats harper. So long as we beat harper. A small part of me would prefer an NDP-led minority, because I think it would mean a lot of people were voting for the idea of what the NDP used to mean, and have been entirely oblivious to its recent history. (Just like that recent video where people in Toronto told an interviewer they didn't know who their prime minister was or what party was in power over them.) And that would have been nice.

Our political culture in this country is at stinking garbage levels of putrescence. harper is a leap backwards. A rot. To rebuild this country, we need to get rid of harper and the toxic levels of racism, ignorance, Paul Calandra/Rob Ford-ism that this country has sunk to.

And then we, the left, have to re-think our own failures. We have to deeply challenge our stupid beliefs that petitions and rallies and chanting really, deeply impacts things. Because they don't. And so-called "progressives" who can still get enthused by scum like Paul Martin or Barack Obama or Dalton McGuinty need to be educated and educate themselves. And support for clear atrocities such as Israel's carpet-bombings and mass-murder has to excised from the body politic.

Our political system does reflect our society. The power of business and money. The prevalence of white, male privilege. The conflicts papered-over with empty rhetoric and delusion. The racism. The contempt for the environment. The ignorance and the laziness.

And all that reflects on OUR failures as progressives, to change things.

The corporate media??? Okay. The corporate media exists. We've known this for decades. What real steps have we taken to deal with this?

We need to work harder and smarter.

Not engage in outright lies and hackery and stupidity such as MoS and the gang are engaged in.

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Now I Know Why Peter MacKay Would Tolerate Nazi Teenagers ...

... shooting up a mall food court! Why that doofus refused to say those white supremacists were plotting terrorism!

First of all, as we learned from his C-51 testimony; calling white, right-wing terrorism "terror" would likely lead to subjecting such fine, upstanding, "old stock" Canadians to all the horrors of state oppression that brown people of all stripes, Muslims and First Nations are to be condemned to. Even worse, "old stock" Canadians could even find their citizenship taken away from them!!!

(This is fine treatment for "old stock" Canadians with the wrong political ideas. Like, say, white Canadians who hate corporate criminality and anti-democratic thuggery, and who fight back against those menaces as opposed to brave neo-Nazi fuckwads who beat-up on isolated minority groups.)

Peter MacKay can't put his own party's voting base at risk!
Here's a slippery slope: Why is terrorism so bad that we lose our citizenship but serial killers don't? Okay. Fine! Let's strip citizenship rights from nasty criminals to, and deport those who have citizenship elsewhere! Fuckin' A! But what about people who have no other citizenship who are criminals! Let's make them non-citizens, without the legal, political, human rights of citizens! Let's start to strip these rights willy-nilly, from anyone convicted of crimes against the state!

Let's have Guantanamo Bay right here!

What could go wrong? Surely you know that Canada is a "democracy" and the state only has your best interests (especially your "safety") at heart and would NEVER abuse these powers!!!!

Sunday, October 4, 2015

Michael Witney on Putin in Syria

It's a bit too much "Rah-rah Putin" for my tastes, but, as such, it serves as a useful antidote to the sickening, murderous hypocrisy of US political and media elites of all stripes, when they talk about Syria.
But while the Obama administration is frantically searching for a strategy, Putin’s air-squadrons are unleashing holy hell on the sociopaths, the head-choppers and the other assorted vipers that comprise the Islamic State.  And Mr. Putin is getting plenty of help too, particularly from the crack-troops in the Iranian Quds forces and from the ferocious militia that defeated the IDF in two separate conflicts, Hezbollah, the Army of God. 
...In other words, he’s going to bomb these jokers into oblivion and let Quds brigade and Hezbollah mop up afterwards. There will be no Russian boots-on-the-ground. The Russian airforce will get precise intelligence on ISIS locations from Syrian agents on the battlefield which will minimize civilian casualties and limit damage to critical infrastructure. It will also make mincemeat out of anyone on the receiving end of the bombardment. Does anyone seriously believe that  ISIS and the disparate rabble of “moderate” throat-slitters that receive CIA funding are going to be able to withstand this impending onslaught?No way. Putin’s going to cut through these guys like a tornado through a trailer park.  Yes, ISIS has had some success against the bedraggled Iraqi and Syrian armies. But now they’re up-against the A Team where they are clearly out of their league.  Rolling up these cutthroats is going to take a lot less time than anyone figured.
Recently, the USA's leaders have exhibited complete and utter shamelessness, launched a brazen assault on our collective intelligence, by warning Putin that bombing will only increase the number of refugees fleeing Syria and that "collateral damages" from bombing might create more new terrorists than it kills. [!]

Let's assume though, that Whitney's predictions in that essay come true. Putin, Iran and Hezbollah kick the shit out of the CIA's and the Saudi's psychopaths and the war is over. What happens next? Hundreds of thousands of Syrians return home. All of them grateful to Putin, Iran and Hezbollah (and China). And what will they think of us? Only as a bunch of whining, hypocritical scumbags who refused to take them in in their hour of need out of paranoid bigotry and fear.

Saturday, October 3, 2015

The Decay of the Elites With the Decay of the Economy

In the glory days of the welfare state, Conservatives offered programs to people and promised that a pro-business party would run them more effectively than any other party. Ignorant yahoos couldn't get near the reins of power. And, as voters, they were not pandered to.
Since the 1960's however, it was felt (by elites) that democracy was getting out of hand. It was put forward that the welfare state was sinking under its own weight. So, no more public welfare programs.
With the demise of the Soviet Union, coinciding with the propaganda campaign against the "excesses" of the welfare state, it was decided that any pretence about government responsibility (or even ability) to promote the public welfare should be abandoned.
Now that they have literally nothing to offer the majority, we see Conservatives employing racism and other forms of scape-goating, to mobilize their voter base. "White culture is under attack!" "Christianity is under attack!" "The Family is under attack!" "Crime is out of control!" "Terrorists are coming to get you!" "Global Warming is a socialist plot to steal your money and your freedom!"
That's all they've got. And it appears to be enough. Likewise, the best people to spew this drivel are ignorant yahoos and scum-bags like Paul Calandra, Pierre Poilievre, Rob Ford, or towering slab of rancid mediocrity, Stephen Harper.
What really takes the cake is when these "Conservatives" (both the voters and the leaders) turn out to contain a relatively higher level of drug-abusing, violent criminal chicken-hawks than the rest of the population. Whether its KKK leaders found in bed with black male prostitutes, or Rahim Jaffer found with cocaine in his car, or Rob Ford (who needs no introduction), or Stephen "run for the closet" Harper who has teenaged girls passing out drunk in his driveway.

Thursday, October 1, 2015

And the Hypocritical, Self-Righteous Asshole Award Goes To ....


I've been going to MoS's blog fairly regularly since I posted this about him. I used to go because I admired his thinking, but now I've gone to look in the same sort of morbid way that people slow down to look at car accidents. I want to see how he'll disgrace himself with each new post about Mulcair and the NDP. Believe me, there have been several occasions when I was tempted to comment, either over there or here, but I restrained myself. Out of respect for past work I suppose.

That latest post of his about Mulcair isn't even the worst, but it is certainly the stupidest and the most hypocritical.
Harper's poll numbers are rebounding and so, in the full tradition of the Great Layton, Mulcair is focusing the NDP's efforts on attacking Trudeau.
I am not a fan of Tom Mulcair. I've been critical of Mulcair going after Trudeau. I genuinely want harper gone. Whether it's an NDP-led coalition or a Liberal-led coalition. And I despise the Liberal Party. I just believe that our parliamentary system is something to build on. There are limited controls over just how badly our elites can fuck us over when there's limited democracy, legislative oversight and some degree of respect for the law. My hatred of the Liberal Party is based on the argument that they're identical to the putrid US Democrats. Too many of their front-bench are pro-corporate, imperialist stooges. But I will vote for a Liberal to get rid of harper, because the Liberals have a better track record of not shitting all over the basic fundamentals of our pseudo-democracy.

But what's behind MoS's loathing of Mulcair and the NDP? That Mulcair has campaigned against Trudeau? Is it even a question in this partisan idiot's brain as to whether Trudeau has attacked Mulcair? Because he has. BOTH parties are guilty of this stupid bullshit. But MoS either wants to pretend that only Mulcair is the evil scorpion doing what scorpions do because he's deluded, or because he's a cynical, hypocritical, partisan hack.

Such transparent bullshit should be beneath him. But partisan sickness has devoured his brain.

What's that you say? MoS is not a Liberal. He's a "Disaffected Liberal"? He supports the Green Party of Canada. Because the environment is all-important, the Liberals under everyone since Martin have been disgusting and he couldn't take it anymore. As I said before though, you can take the boy out of the Liberal Party but you apparently can't take the Liberal Party out of the boy. Sure, he's a Greenie. But the Liberal Party of Canada is like an old girlfriend for whom he still has fond memories. (God help us all if he were still a Liberal supporter. Can you imagine his apoplectic rage against Mulcair targeting Trudeau then??? Thank the Lard that he's a Greenie!)

In a pathetic moment, MoS tries to dispel his own possible complicity in helping give stephen harper another seat in this close race for power.
How I cast my vote on October 19th is irrelevant, utterly inconsequential, especially in contrast to what Mulcair is doing to aid and abet Stephen Harper's bid to cling to power. 
You know, there are valid criticisms of strategic voting. 1. It's been twisted and abused to mean: "Vote only for our party." 2. It might not be effective. 3. It's a demeaning way to vote. We should vote for what we want, not against what we don't want. 4. That supporters of a third (or fourth) party might not vote for the leading anti-harperite before they'd vote for harper or any other candidate.

I could go on.

But one thing you can't deny is the math. You can't deny that in a race with a harpercon, where the harpercon has 30,000 votes, and the NDP has 29,600 votes, and the Liberals have 10,000 votes and the Greens have 401 votes, that the anti-harper opposition divided its votes and allowed the harpercon to win. That if they'd all voted for the one biggest contender, the harpercon would have lost. It's simple addition.

So, I'm sorry MoS, but while I'm happy that you no longer accuse those of us choosing to vote Liberal or NDP as being complete moral failures and, indeed, of being nazi slave owners, because of your deranged partisan bullshit, I (who would ordinarily grant you your right to vote for a Quixotic fourth party candidate with good grace) cannot excuse you if your self-righteous, self-centred choice ends up helping to allow a harpercon to win that seat.

You'll have to own your complicity with helping stephen harper advance to victory like all the rest of us pathetic shit-heads.
 It's what the NDP did to Martin. It's what they did to Ignatieff. And now it's Mulcair's turn to do the same goddamned thing to the Trudeau Liberals.
Fuck you, you psychopath.


And he sinks even lower into his own abyss. In response to a second poster who points out that Trudeau has also attacked Mulcair, the Mound of Sound fucking LIES and says:
Trudeau is attacking Harper. Mulcair is attacking Trudeau. One of these men is helping Harper. Sorry, Ben, but Trudeau's vote on C-51 doesn't bear on campaign tactics, especially not with Harper's fortunes rebounding. There's not one piece of legislation that Trudeau was instrumental in passing given Harper's majority.
If we hadn't seen this very sort of thing from the NDP in every election since Martin was ousted I might see this differently but probably not. However that's not what has happened and Stephen Harper has been the ultimate beneficiary first springboarding off Layton to come to power and then to majority.
Tiresome asshat "Scotian" pipes up too, blathering on about "dippers" but I can't be bothered to read the deluded, self-righteous, idiotic bullshit from that idiot anymore.

As I've said, I'm going to vote Liberal in my area. Because that's what a patriot, or, rather, someone who wants to improve his country and who puts his country before partisanship, will do. But I am sick almost unto fucking death of this rancid bullshit from Liberal partisan fucks.

Your great hero Paul Martin was a complete fucking asshole. He was venal scum, screwing the poor and benefiting the wealthy. He deserved to be defeated and he LOST the 2006 election because of his own miserable record and his own incompetence. I am so tired of your self-pitying bullshit about Layton and harper being buddies.

You're a fucking liar Mound of Sound. A shameless liar and a shameless hack.