Tuesday, April 4, 2017

Non-Violent Logic

Here's a video of women in India beating up a couple of rapists:


Strange how you can access some videos on YouTube but not via the "blogger" video upload system.

Oh well. Basically, I've seen a few videos of different instances where a large group of Indian women have one or two men, caught in the act of attempted rape, and are beating the men with sticks and any other objects that came to hand. Usually the men have been tied up to something, but I remember one where the man was free, but staggering, and occasionally making a pleading motion with his hands begging the women to stop.

Let's apply some of the standard "logic" of those who subscribe to the dogma of non-violence to pathological levels:

"Those women are 'discrediting' the cause they claim to be fighting for."

How does "don't rape" get "discredited"?? How does that work in practice?

"Those women are no better than the rapists they're attacking."

What a vile thing to say.

"Those women are losing the sympathy of the general public."

This is similar to the first accusation, and is generally what is meant by a cause being "discredited." The cause itself isn't discredited, but it might be in the eyes of those in the general public who haven't yet made up their minds on the issue, thereby decreasing public support for the cause. Of course, in this case, those among the general public who don't have an opinion as to whether rape is bad or not, are probably men. Which makes the statement: "Those women are losing the potential sympathy of men who don't care about rape one way or another."

To which those women would probably reply: "Who cares what they think?"

It's the same with other causes, such as homelessness, corporate human rights abuses, or Nazis. People who haven't decided where they stand on such things are either clueless, ignorant or callous. As such, they have removed themselves from the conversation or they're part of the problem.

"Those women are undermining all the work of non-violent anti-rape activists."


Once again,  I'm not asking people to go out and get their skulls cracked in fights with the cops. I'm not trying to be the Canadian Pol Pot. I'm just trying to gently nudge intellectual support away from the pathological adherence to non-violence that permeates leftist culture, because I think it is self-evidently counterproductive.

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

George W. Bush & Rob Ford

Recently, there's been efforts to rehabilitate the war criminal (and moron) George W. Bush. Supposedly he respected the news media (when he wasn't lying to them about WMDs) and he isn't as obnoxious as Donald J. Trump. Yes, and for this thin gruel we forgive him his criminal war of aggression against Iraq; his vicious racism, his corruption. This lazy, stupid, ignorant man is now an "elder statesman" or something.

Why is so much our political culture self-evidently vile and stupid???

Similarly, the shameless hacks and hypocrites at SUN Media are reflecting fondly on the career of Rob Ford on the first anniversary of his death.

Now, first of all, of these two men, Rob Ford was the better. He might have been a vicious homophobe (and given that he's younger than me, that's inexcusable), and a hypocrite and abusive, but he also had a hard-working side to him. Bush was, and still is, irredeemably lazy. Also, Ford had the "common touch." He genuinely got along with a lot of people. Bush was an arrogant elitist. (Some achievement for an imbecile.) Ford had this endearing fuck-up aspect that charmed many people.

But let's not forget some other not-so-nice parts of our dear, departed ex-mayor. Now, normally, I wouldn't bother to write about Rob Ford, especially critically, now that he's gone. He wasn't a world-historical monster, whose grim legacy has relevance for us all still. But if the Toronto Sun is going to deliberately mythologize the man, and lie about his record and his behaviour, then their bullshit deserves a response.

Let's start with Joe Warmington's "Ford's Influence Still Felt": Around about the middle of the editorial he writes: "The headlines and interest in videos about his addictions are gone." "Videos about his addictions." That could be a video with two doctors talking about the nature of the drugs Ford was taking and their impact upon his health. Or, it could be a fucking video of him smoking fucking crack cocaine that was later used to try to extort money from him. And the newspaper headlines would be about that too. Isn't it goddamned newsworthy when the mayor of Canada's largest city is smoking crack cocaine with gangsters??? Especially a mayor with a stated "zero tolerance for drugs and gangs"?

Warmington continues: "So is the cat-and-mouse game of political opponents and media trying to force him from office." I have to say, Joe, that it's entirely common practice to expect that politicians caught engaging in illegal behaviour tend to resign. If Dennis Miller was caught on tape buying heroin, do you think Toronto City Council would ask only that he "seek help for his demons"? And the other time Ford almost lost power came when he stupidly spoke to and voted on the question of whether he should have to pay a fine. Ie., something on which he had an individual financial interest. This is called "conflict of interest." And he was being fined for hitting up lobbyists to donate to his highschool football charity.

[Now here's the thing about that: I have no doubt that Ford's football charity was legit. I do not believe he used it for personal gain. But it looks bad to ask people coming to City Hall asking for jobs or favours, to hit them up for money. Tolerating what Ford did would allow for all sorts of murky activity. Any idiot who isn't a partisan stooge would see and admit that. That Ford spoke to and voted on whether he should be fined for such behaviour was absolutely atrocious.]

Warmington goes on about how with Ford gone, the free-spending, lazy ways are back. Also: "Political correctness is back with a vengeance."  What the fuck??? Oh my god! "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!!!" Shriek! No! Won't somebody think of the children???

What is the dumb-fuck even talking about with that one?

"He believed every tax dollar was sacred and not to be wasted or squandered."

Except for the multi-million dollar fines he had the city incur for cancelling "Transit City" when shovels had already started digging the ground. Except for burying a report on the Gardiner Expressway because he likes that ugly white elephant and didn't want to have a debate about maybe tearing it down or burying it. And except for all those friends of his who got jobs in his office. And except for those assistants who ran personal errands for him on the taxpayers' dime while he was railing about other councilors buying an espresso machine for their office or a bunny suit to march in a parade.

Another article: "'He was lynched' Mother and brother remember late mayor'"

Now, obviously, someone who married Ford's obnoxious blowhard right-wing father, is going to have loved her obnoxious right-wing son. And she would naturally be hurt by the criticism of her son. But let's face facts: He brought international disgrace to this city. He was a monstrous hypocrite and a fiscal incompetent. Yes, he restrained (some) spending. But he obviously had no clue about the city's finances and would contradict himself as to whether Toronto had a revenue or a spending problem depending upon what he was talking about at the time.

Lastly, Adrienne Batra speculates about what Ford would say about Kathleen Wynne, Justin Trudeau and Donald Trump. Basically it's a bunch of pointless crap with constant references to how careful Ford was with the city's money.

If you want to know how loyal Donald Trump's fans are and will be, look no further than the loyalty of "Ford Nation." You can literally smoke crack with gangsters, after having rejected funding for anti-gang programs as "hug a thug" spending, and get away with it. Ford was a personal disgrace and a disaster as mayor. Do not seek to mythologize or canonize the man.

(I thought this edition of "24 Hours" also had the racist idiot Sue-Ann Levy's sycophantic article about fellow racist idiot Ezra Levant's talk at Ryerson University. But it must have been another one. What scum.)

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Trudeau Killed Electoral Reform

Just a reminder Liberal partisans: Hero boy has a solid majority. harpercon obstruction and NDP lately deciding they'd agree to a referendum were irrelevant in the face of this majority. Like harper with his omnibus bills, the Liberals could have passed anything they had a mind to. But this same solid majority reminded Trudeau and his Liberals why they liked "first past the post." Electoral reform died on election night.

So, any bitching and whining about anybody "splitting the vote" from a Liberal is monstrously hypocritical.

Friday, March 10, 2017

What's Going To Happen To Chris Alexander?

I've loathed Chris Alexander since I'd first heard of his existence, back in 2011. That was when he was first running for office as a Conservative candidate in the riding of Ajax-Pickering. He was saying that torture in Afghanistan wasn't a big issue, even though Afghanistan's entire justice/legal system was rife with abuses from top to bottom.

But, aside from my own misgivings, the meme about him was that he was this "golden boy" diplomat from within Canada's Foreign Affairs Department who brought real ability to his new role as a politician. Obviously, I never saw it and still don't. It seems more likely to me that he was nothing more than a supreme butt-kisser/yes-man who took the position of Canadian Ambassador to Afghanistan because he was determined to make something out of such a hideous job. He was prepared (as so many of his colleagues probably weren't) to turn a blind eye to all the war crimes and other abuses he would (and did) see, and to cheer-lead for whatever brazen hypocrisies the Canadian government of the moment uttered about "the Mission."

Which was why he ignored Richard Colvin's numerous e-mails about how ALL of our detainees were being tortured by their Afghan jailers. He presided over such barbarism and failure for years, and then he parlayed that into a career in politics, eventually rising to become a Cabinet Minister, where he similarly ignored the desperate cries for help of Syrians trying to flee to safe havens after the USA and its allies turned their country into a slaughter-house. Unfortunately for him, this policy of murderous cruelty ended up hurting him when Syrian refugees began washing up dead on the beaches of the Mediterranean in the hundreds as over-crowded, leaking boats they were on sank beneath the waves. And, sadly for Chris, some of them were tiny children, whose parents had tried to apply for refugee status in Canada, and they died during a Canadian federal election. Alexander had to "suspend" his campaigning and go back to Ottawa (ostensibly to "deal" with the crisis, but actually, simply to hide from the media until the storm subsided).

Chris Alexander subsequently lost his seat in that election. And now he is running for leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada. But he isn't doing so well. He's barely registering. He's certain to lose. What then? Back to diplomatic service? Not fucking likely. He's been exposed as a dishonest, partisan rat. A sick joke. (Given his public behaviour, I'm willing to bet Alexander pissed a lot of people off on his way up the ladder.)

Canada is a rich country but we starve our culture. Canadian households spend their money on ordinary things. And Canada's super-rich spend their money on luxury goods and safe investments. That's why former high-ranking politicians often have to take jobs shilling for parasites like the pay-day loan people. Our media is on life-support.

What I'm saying is that the future doesn't look good for ol' Chris Alexander. And I hope it stays that way and he genuinely suffers.

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Glenn Greenwald on the US Democrats

Foolish chump, or mercenary Democratic Party hack Driftglass has a hate-on for Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald is a libertarian don't you know. He isn't a corporate stooge Democrat who mouths platitudes about the working class and minorities like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Therefore his exposes of Obama and Clinton's mass spying and crimes against humanity are of no account.

But I have a helluva lot more respect for Greenwald than I do for Driftglass, so that's why I think it's important to mention Greenwald's latest evisceration of that party's overall uselessness.

The more alarmed one is by the Trump administration, the more one should focus on how to fix the systemic, fundamental sickness of the Democratic Party. That Hillary Clinton won the meaningless popular vote on her way to losing to Donald Trump, and that the singular charisma of Barack Obama kept him popular, have enabled many to ignore just how broken and failed the Democrats are as a national political force.

A failed, collapsed party cannot form an effective resistance. Trump did not become president and the Republicans do not dominate virtually all levels of government because there is some sort of massive surge in enthusiasm for right-wing extremism. Quite the contrary: This all happened because the Democrats are perceived — with good reason — to be out of touch, artificial, talking points-spouting automatons who serve Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the agenda of endless war, led by millionaires and funded by oligarchs to do the least amount possible for ordinary, powerless citizens while still keeping their votes.
Everyone knows the popular cliché that insanity means doing the same thing over and over and expecting different outcomes; it illustrates why Democrats cannot continue as is and expect anything other than ongoing impotence and failure. The party’s steadfast refusal to change course even in symbolic ways — We hereby elevate by acclamation Chuck “Wall Street” Schumer and re-install Nancy “I’m a multimillionaire and we are capitalists” Pelosi — bodes very poorly for its future success.
For the last five years, the face of the DNC was the living, breathing embodiment of everything awful about the party: the sleazy, corrupt corporatist, and centrist hawk Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who — as a result of WikiLeaks’ publication of DNC emails — had to resign in disgrace after she got caught engaging in sustained cheating in order to ensure that Hillary Clinton would be the party’s nominee.
But her disgrace was short-lived: Upon resigning, she was quickly rewarded for her corruption by being named to a high position with the Clinton campaign, as well as having the D.C. establishment Democrats, led by Joe Biden and Clinton herself, support her in vanquishing a Sanders-supported primary challenger for her seat in Congress. As a result of the support from the party establishment (as well as massive funding from corporate and banking interests), she defeated that challenger, Tim Canova, and the nation rejoiced as she returned for her seventh term in Congress.
Perhaps worse than the serial cheating itself was that it was all in service of coronating a candidate who — as many of us tried to warn at the time — all empirical data showed was the most vulnerable to lose to Donald Trump. So the very same people who bear the blame for Trump’s presidency — by cheating to elevate the candidate most likely to lose to him — continue to dominate the Democratic Party. To describe the situation is to demonstrate the urgency of debating and fixing it, rather than ignoring it in the name of talking only about Trump.
So in Tom Perez’s conduct, one sees the mentality and posture that has shaped the Democratic Party: a defense of jobs-killing free trade agreements that big corporate funders love; an inability to speak plainly, without desperately clinging to focus-group, talking-points scripts; a petrified fear of addressing controversial issues even (especially) when they involve severe human rights violations by allies; a religious-like commitment never to offend rich donors; and a limitless willingness to publicly abase oneself in pursuit of power by submitting to an apology ritual for having told the truth.
That is the template that has driven the Democratic Party into a ditch so deep and disastrous that even Vox acknowledges it without euphemisms. That is the template that has alienated voters across the country at all levels of elected office and that enabled the Donald Trump presidency.
If you're interested in a true renewal of the political culture that enabled a Trump victory, you'd do well to take Greenwald's advice.

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Profiles in Liberal Fuck-Wittery

Sorry liberals/Liberals. Not going to apologize for not supporting corrupt, mass-murderer Hillary Clinton. "Lesser-Evilism" brought us to Trump. It was HRC's job to get people to support her. It wasn't everybody else's responsibility to force themselves to want to vote for her. She could not get people mobilized, even against someone as loathsome and stupid as Donald Trump because she was running on her party's, her husbands and Obama's legacy. A legacy of destructive corporate rights "free trade" deals. A legacy of destruction of social programs. A legacy of austerity. A legacy of mass incarceration. A legacy of continuing Repug policies of torture and war and inhumanity.

The response of sane people is to reject BOTH Clintonism and Trumpism. If you want to vote for criminal, mass-murdering, elite-serving scum-bags liberals, that's YOUR mental affliction. And fuck you.

And, no, sorry Liberals; once again, let me repeat that Jack Layton was under no obligation to allow Paul (bullshit artist) Martin to continue to destroy public healthcare. If Paul-goddamned-Martin cared so much about his national daycare program (promised in 1992 and due for delivery by 2007), or his Keewatin Accord, he could have agreed to stop destroying pubic healthcare. I guess his priorities were to destroy pubic healthcare first over those other two.

Lately there's been some self-righteous anonymous prick in liberal Montreal Simon's comments section saying shit like this:
Left wing morons+right wing media working hard to take down Justin Trudeau so we can get Leitch or O'Leery as Prime Minister. Just look at the hype around Jagmeet Singh. Yes yes, he is in GQ, yes yes, split the vote you goddamn fucking morons.
I replied:
Split the vote? You mean that problem we have with our archaic first-past-the-post electoral system?
The one that Justin has decided to keep?
There really can't be anything to say after that. Blaming lefties for a problem that dreamy Justin Trudeau allows to continue.

Speaking of dreamy Justin Trudeau: While he does look nice in all those selfies, he must be pretty rotten on the inside to goddamned fucking ignore the SUICIDE EPIDEMIC among First Nations' youth. He's pretty fucking scuzzy to ignore a direct order to bring spending on social services for First Nations up to those enjoyed by the settler society. (Even after cynically voting for a NDP motion that he do so.) The asshole is planning on having a Canadian version of the Standing Rock tragedy.

Sorry liberals.

Monday, February 13, 2017

My "alt-right" Co-Worker

No. He's not a Nazi, or a white supremacist. First of all, he's Filipino. And, while he might be dismayed to find out what Steve Bannon really thinks of him when the chips are down, "Breitbart" (which he reads regularly) has a big enough tent that if features the gay, partly Jewish, Greek (and utterly vile scum-bag) Milo Yiannopoulis as one of their star editors. (Which is not to say that the "grassroots" of "Breitbart" wouldn't kill Milo along with my co-worker if given their druthers.)

When I first got transferred to his section of the factory I had a lot on my mind and wasn't in the mood to be sociable with anyone. Bizarrely, without having known me more than a couple of days, he asked if I wanted to date his cousin. (He's 56, I'm 50. I'm assuming that his cousin is also in late middle age, which is not a good age to be single in. So, her choices are probably fairly limited, but it was still bizarre.) I said no. Truthfully I'm not interested in a relationship. He also made intimations of having a drink after work. But by then I'd heard enough of his other views and, combined with my long-term bad mood, I chose not to take him up on the offer.

We ended up in the same strip-plaza restaurant for lunch once and sat with each other. Out of nowhere he told me that while he had guns back home in the Philippines, he couldn't get one in Canada, but if he'd had one he would have killed his ex-wife. I was flabbergasted. I mumbled something about how I tend to want to harm myself when my relationships go sour, but chalk one up for Canada's gun laws 'eh? He'd be in prison now and his children would hate him. (Obviously his ex-wife would be dead, but that might not have bothered him.)

A big part of our relationship is that I don't really know what I'm doing with this piece of machinery I'm operating and I need his help on a regular basis. So I'm not going to debate/argue with him about politics. But all our conversations ended up somehow into a chance to showcase his right-wing views. And he seems to get frustrated and angry quickly. I don't want to give him ammunition. Early on, I only asked him if he'd heard of the pipeline protest at Standing Rock. I wondered if the mainstream media was even reporting on it. Indeed he had. I was treated to a lengthy statement about how the First Nations (not his term) simply had to get with the program and forget about all their claims and nature and all that other shit. (Of course, none of that has anything to do with the markedly different treatment of the desires of the people of Bismarck South Dakota to not have the pipeline so close to their drinking water and those of the people of Standing Rock to not have the pipeline so close to their own drinking water supplies.)

I didn't get into it with him. I just repeated that I was wondering if he'd even heard about the stand-off.

So, it's been a couple of months or so. And I notice that the guy is fairly lonely. I'm thinking that more people don't want to end up having to listen to long-winded, right-wing tirades. (Especially about topics they might be blissfully ignorant about.) So, one day I was reading CounterPunch and there was a long article about the struggle for Mosul. It sounds horrible. Like a mini-Stalingrad. But I figured it being a manly topic (war) and dealing with attacking the terrorists where they live, that he and I could have some mutual agreement. Bringing up the topic I was treated to him telling me that they should just flatten the place. Bomb it to obliteration. Too bad about the civilians. Including the children. They'd probably grow up to be terrorists too. You can't reason with such people. Their religion makes them fanatics. They're all the same. Which is why it's so foolish for white liberals to say "let everyone in" when it comes to refugees. Why, did I know that Denmark is now 45% Muslim? [That struck me as implausible.] They've brought Sharia Law to Denmark. That's what they do. White people don't have big families. Because we're selfish and narcissistic. But Muslims do. They have 4-5 kids, minimum, and they abuse all those liberal multiculturalism values to establish their rights and they fucking just take over. Pretty soon, nobody has any rights. White people don't notice because we're all into "personal growth" and "personal development."

It wasn't until I saw one of these nut-bars standing right before me that I appreciated the murderous, fanatical bigotry that leads some of them to commit atrocities like the Quebec City mosque shooting. And then this guy's devotion to "Breitbart" (despite not being a Caucasian) made more sense. His contempt for white liberals and/or privileged white individualism became explicable. He's a salt-of-the-earth Filipino. He works hard and he has to know what's-what. He can neither afford to financially, or mentally, stick his head in the ground and dream about yoga classes, or the brotherhood of all mankind, or about degenerate liberal nonsense like sharing one's wives with Black men. He recognizes better than people like me the danger that Western Civilization faces from Islamic Fundamentalist Jihad. (Responding to his murderously bigoted drivel I only joked that the Muslims would have a fight on their hands if they took away my right to have bacon on my pizza.)

Just like the incoherent, rambling garbage that comes from fellow "alt-right" ("white nationalist on paper") Davis Aurini, this guy sees himself on the front-line of a cultural war. He sees liberals as being blind to the danger and even enabling the danger with their imbecilic values of "social justice" and "multiculturalism" and "human rights." That's why they're all so angry at liberals and Muslims. They stew in their conspiracy theories and they build their fantasies in exquisite detail. (Like Davis Aurini; who simply piles groundless assertion upon groundless assertion, until he can say stupid things like "anyone with an ounce of sanity is voting for Donald Trump.")

They believe this shit. They live this shit. They've worked themselves up into a state where they actually call out loud for bombing children to death. And then they go and shoot-up mosques.

So, the thing is, I'm needing this guy's assistance less and less as I become more proficient at my job. Should I confront him? I hesitate because we're a small team on this shift. It could end up creating an extremely stressful situation. ("Productivity is down because [thwap] and Ernesto are fighting over politics again. Fire one or both of them.") More likely the problem will be cognitive dissonance. As the years go by, I see this effecting people more and more. My faith in rational, fact-based discussion weakens when I read progressives saying stupid shit like "Barack Obama was a progressive" or "Trump avoiding nuclear war with Russia is bad, but threatening nuclear war with China is also bad." I can see only too plainly that trying to reason with this guy would be a complete waste of time.

More and more, I think I'll just write for myself and pursue my cartooning and to hell with everything and everyone else.