Wednesday, August 29, 2012

We Made it All Up

Yep. The "coalition coup" was planned well in advance! There was no reason for it other than a burning lust for power. Also, wanting to know whether we were upholding international law with regards to our transfers of prisoners in Afghanistan was just a smoke-screen to embarrass the harpercon government, national security be damned! And then that "contempt" ruling! Just because Bev Oda falsified documents and lied to Parliament about it and harper wouldn't do anything but utter lies about the costs of his policies, ... there was nothing to any of it! The opposition just wanted power. So what if they were behind in the polls when they made the ruling and forced the election. Us crazed leftists are power-hungry mental deviants.

Last, but not least, we've invented the "robo-call" scandal out of whole cloth. Sure, someone with access to the CIMS database clearly made some fraudulent calls, but that was a lone individual rogue. And that female call-centre employee who says she was told to give bogus information about poll stations moving decided the day after the election that she could get rich if she invented false charges and reported them to the RCMP and Elections Canada. A sure ticket to unending riches. She'd be set for life. But Thank God that her boss says he has recordings of her and that she doesn't do that in the recordings that he says he has. (Thank God Elections Canada let the accused harpercons "review" their own records and tapes 'eh?) And complaints in over 200 ridings across the country? All leftard partisans inventing shit.

Yep. We made it all up. Everything. One desperate power-grab after another. Because we're crazy. And evil. And we pathologically hate harper.

Okay. Enough sarcasm. Right-wingers, ... not everyone is like you. And praise the lawd fer that! The world would be an even more sickening place if that were the case.

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Two Books

Nothing else to do. I'll post about two books I read.

The first is called Bomb Power: The Modern Presidency and the National Security State by Garry Willis. Willis says that the trappings of the imperial presidency are almost all the fault of the huge increase in power to that office created by and necessitated by nuclear weapons. I share the reviewer's belief that it can't all be blamed on the bomb. Unlike the reviewer, I think it had more to do with taking over international capitalist imperialism than with the pressures of the Cold War.

The other book is Democratizing the Constitution: Reforming Responsible Government. It details how stephen harper has taken advantage of the very wide powers given to Canadian prime ministers as a result of custom and convention, and outlines ways to close these gaps. Considering the subject matter, I found it surprisingly dry. But all the facts are real and important enough.




Monday, August 27, 2012

Vic Toews Can Either Stand With Us, or Stand With the Torturers

Right. So, besides the "Toronto 18 (12? 9?)" who would have done exactly NOTHING had a coke-addicted RCMP informant gotten them all fired up, Canadian security forces have produced nothing in the way of threats thwarted by our draconian "anti-terror" legislation. Nothing, nothing, NOTHING. More Canadians have been killed as a result of terrorist acts committed by Sikhs than by Muslims. We didn't need rights-shredding abominations like the Anti-Terrorism Act then and we don't need it now.

We most certainly do not then need the latest excuse given by Vic Toews to let him masturbate to the idea of young men screaming in pain.

The Conservative government has quietly given Canada's national police force and the federal border agency the authority to use and share information that was likely extracted through torture.
Newly disclosed records show Public Safety Minister Vic Toews issued the directives to the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency shortly after giving similar orders to Canada's spy service.

I know that Vic Toews is a fucking imbecile. But even so debased and stupid an individual as Toews should recognize that the word "torture" describes what is often known as "evil." "Crimes against humanity." "Stuff that bad guys do." And, the great screaming obvious truth is that this debasement of Canada is completely unnecessary. Not only is torture morally wrong; not only is torture practically worthless as an information-gathering tool; the fact of the matter is that there's no great threat that requires us to shriek like ninnies and empower scuzz-balls like Vic Toews to resort to it.

Omigod, there is going to be a reckoning for these crimes!

Friday, August 24, 2012

Airshow MacKay vs. the Lives of "R"CAF Pilots

Just a reminder about what a craven turd and self-centred tool Peter MacKay is. We all know that the mega-expensive F-35 fighter jet is a highly problematic project. Evidently, it's one claim to fame, it's "stealth" is pretty much dead on arrival. Everything has been sacrificed to the plane's stealth. MacKay has read enough briefing papers (even if he tends to fall asleep five sentences into them) to know this. But Mr. "Support the Troops" doesn't give a shit that Canadian pilots' safety and even their lives will be compromised by flying these things (on offensive missions of choice, natch). His corporate masters have given their orders and obeying them has always been a profitable line of work for him, so, to hell with their lives.

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Progressive Patriot: The War on Terror Part II

The way to grow a blog's readership is to post frequently so that there's always something new when bored people click in to waste some more time. But, obviously, I ain't doing that. This whole online world is starting to leave me kinda cold. Oh well, not going to give up the ghost just yet ...

Last time, I introduced the right-wing shit-for-brains concept of "The War on Terror[ism]". I was going to articulate the progressive's view on the issues involved but I had other stuff to do so I stopped.

So, I'm doing it now. The "War on Terror" is really about:

Imperialism: The only terrorism that really gets US-Americans excited is from the Arab world. This is because the USA wants to control the Arabs' oil. Full stop.

Control: The point of states of permanent war is to control people. "We have always been at war with East Asia." It's to turn off people's brains and get them to jerk off to the idea of the military and to keep them scared about stuff. After the titanic levels of propagandistic fraud that we saw in the Cold War, you'd think we'd be smarter this time around. No such fucking luck 'eh?

So, what's a progressive to do?

Call for the Rule of Law and Human Rights. "First they came for the terrorists." The "War on Terror" is being used to simultaneously shred our human and democratic rights and to increase the government's power to spy, to torture, to conduct illegal wars and commit war crimes. Again, all for the purposes of control.

What about that Sharia Law? What about it? I hope all religions die a quick and sudden death. But I'm not going to make common cause with the Christian sect of the Universal Church of Idiotic Delusions against the Islamic sect. Matter of fact, the thing that's going to make more Muslims into intolerant fanatics is the targeting of their faith by states governed by cynical power-mongers and their deluded, nit-wit Jesus-freak supporters. We're in no danger of having the "Islamo-fascists" take over and rob me of my bacon-lovers' pizza or my porno. Despite what chicken-hawk fuck-faces like Mark Steyn want to scare you into thinking.

I don't know. I got to get back to work. I guess the progressive position on the war on terrorism is that we on the left aren't fucking idiots, you know?

Friday, August 17, 2012

Progressive Patriot: The War on Terrorism Part I

This is the third part of an intended series to try to come up with a positive agenda to try to make this country a better place. In a better world, I wouldn't have to even deal with trashing something as self-evidently idiotic as "The War on Terror." Alas, alack, however ridiculous it is, the War is a very real one (although obviously not in the sense that its adherents imagine it is) and has had huge consequences for Canada.

The semi-sane version of the War on Terror is that nasty Islamic fundamentalist fanatics have invented grievances about US foreign policy and that's why they attack the saintly, completely innocent, never hurt anybody, damned if they don't - damned if they do, USA. The US government is forced to enact draconian anti-terror legislation to make it difficult for terrorist groups to operate and, furthermore, to invade those countries that give the terrorists safe havens, and root them out at the source.

The truly crazy, nutso version overlaps with the semi-sane one, as the president who really started the whole thing, bush II, genuinely believed that the terrorists hate the USA for its freedoms. (In a craven case of what's never called "appeasement" bush II abolished the US-American freedoms that the terrorists supposedly hated.) The bat-shit crazy version of the War continues thusly: In the 17th Century, the Ottoman Turks were foiled in their attempted invasion of Central Europe. The Moors had lost Andalusia in the 15th Century. The Muslims have been biding their time since then, hoping to build their strength for a re-match with the forces of Christendom. And now, ... that time has arrived. The Great Battle of Our Time.

Relatively small terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda will form cells and, with enough incompetence on the part of our intelligence services, will occasionally blow up a plane, or a train or a building, and then all of Western Civilization will collapse and the world will be ruled by a New Caliphate in Baghdad. Of course it would be ridiculous to imagine that all it would take to bring the United States and the European powers to their knees is a few explosions! Not even Pam Geller believes that. In addition to the odd terrorist action, Mark Steyn tells us that the millions of Muslims in the Western nations are taking advantage of socialist welfare policies, misguided multicultural tolerance, and the damnable extension of human rights to people who don't deserve it, to gnaw away at Christian civilization from within. The challenge is both demographic and cultural. Eventually the lazy unemployed Muslims (why else would they need social welfare programs to swamp us?) will outnumber us and all of us lefty-fags will find ourselves living under Sharia law. It CAN happen here.

As I said, self-evident nonsense. So what's the progressive spin on things?

Oil. Oil and Empire.

The policy of the USA is to control the oil wealth of the Middle East by arming and supporting conservative dictatorships who will keep the oil flowing on relatively reasonable terms in return for a nice cut of the action themselves. As well, the state of Israel (helped in its early stages by the British, to further their own imperialist aims in the region) is armed and supported to contribute to pro-American "stability" in the region.

I'll finish this tomorrow. I'm busy. Unpaid "citizen journalist" (hah!) and all that.

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Wall Street Trying To Give Obama a Win

This link confirms what I already thought. US politics is a total sham and has been for over a decade. Obama is the consensus candidate for Wall Street because they know they can't get away with everything they'd like to. So, the Repugs are allowed to descend into madness with a hapless buffoon like Mitt Romney as their standard bearer. He nominates the psychotic dork Paul Ryan, and his toxicity with sane US-Americans guarantees another win for the Wall Street shill and mega-betrayer, Barack Obama.

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Progressive Patriot: Quebec

One of the oldest and biggest of Canadian political anxieties is the strife between French and English Canada. As Part II in an intended series, I'd like to describe the progressive position on this issue and contrast it with what I see as the right-wing or "conservative" opinion.

As all Canadians know from their history books, this part of North America was colonized by the French until 1759 when France ceded their North American colony to the British following the Seven Years War. The British government didn't really know what to do with 50,000 French-Catholic subjects but they did know they didn't have the resources to suppress them if they imposed a punitive peace on them. The British decided to let them keep their Catholic Church hierarchy and to retain their language, and, since the colony hadn't had representative government before, they decided it would be ruled through an appointed governor and a hand-picked executive council.

The preservation of the Catholic Church and the lack of representation in Quebec went a long way to starting the conflicts that eventually became the American Revolution. When the British eventually lost the Thirteen Colonies, their English-speaking supporters fled to Quebec and Nova Scotia. (Funny how Canadian history is really a story of dismal false starts, isn't it?) Quebec became Upper and Lower Canada and in both places the ruling elites decided that the cause of the American Revolution had been too much democracy and that henceforth, British North America would be a pillar of executive rule, more monarchist than Britain itself. The resulting bad government produced rebellions in both colonies by 1837, with the autocratic nature of the government in Lower Canada having a racist, anti-French tinge.

The upshot of Lord Durham's Report was that the French had to be assimilated and made British. The colonies were united into one and the French were (in Canada East) to be given equal representation with Canada West (despite having a much higher population) and the slight number of English voters in Canada East would combine with the wholly English vote in Canada West to allow for the legislating away of the whole establishment of French culture (including religious and language rights). But, fighting for their survival, the French voted as a bloc whereas the English were split between Conservatives and Reformers. The French would assist one side or the other to prevent the passage of legislation that would advance or hinder anyone's agenda and the result was legislative and political stalemate. Something had to be done.

That something was the sundering of the united Canada and the pursuit of a federal system with a Confederation of all the colonies of British North America. Within this federal system the provinces would have jurisdiction over health, education and social welfare (as these areas were of obvious religious and linguistic importance). French Catholics and English Protestants could retain their languages and their religious delusions within the separate provinces, and, together, as one bi-cultural nation, the French and the English would march hand-in-hand in equality to steal the West from the First Nations.

It didn't work out that way. English Canadians broke the spirit and the letter of the law both inside and outside of Quebec and tried to force a culture of British imperialism on the entire country. Quebec nationalism became insular and paranoid and vindictive. The Catholic Church and nationalist politicians like Maurice Duplessis practiced a bizarre form of Quebec nationalism. Quebec would be guarded from any policy intrusions from Ottawa and any attacks on the Catholic culture from inside or outside the province, but the economy would be served up on a platter to (mostly US-American) business. The old guard nationalists were reactionaries. Urbanization and industrialization changed the face of Quebec and weakened the old guard, which produced the Quiet Revolution in 1960. This was led by the Quebec Liberal Party and by intellectuals like Pierre Trudeau. Trudeau's vision of federalism was to realize the bi-cultural compact of Confederation of 1867. French language rights were to be recognized across the country and French Canadians would become full partners with English Canadians the way that they had thought would be the case in the first place.

For some of the new generation of Quebec nationalists, this was not enough. It was too little, too late. They wanted independence from Canada. From the October Crisis, to the election of the Parti Quebecois to the government of Quebec, through the First Referendum in 1980 to the Second Referendum in 1995, through Meech Lake and the Charlottetown accord, there have two schools of thought: federalists and nationalists.

To right-wingers, or "conservatives" the existence of two separate kinds of Quebec politician is too confusing. Instead, Quebeckers are just people who complain too much. (as opposed to right-wingers who never complain about anything except Muslims, Jamaicans, the First Nations, single mothers, taxes, rap music, ... etc., etc.,) and who want equal rights for themselves (horrors!) while insisting on inferior rights for other people (which, again, is something that right-wing "conservatives" never do). Quebec will goddamned stay in Canada because it's part of fucking Canada for fuck's sake and that's all there is too it. And too fucking bad if those goddamned frogs don't like it! (Obviously, French Canadians would have to be insane ingrates to want to leave a country full of such wonderful people as these!) Quebec's language is stupid. Their culture is one of socialism (paid for by us). I hate going there because they all speak French. They control the federal government. But I don't want them to leave. ... That appears to be the conclusion of these insufferable shit-for-brains.

What about me? Well, while I suppose that nobody should be stuck in Canada against their will, I do have a sentimental attachment to the shape of the country of Canada on the map. More importantly, I like that there's a part of Canada that's generally smarter about things like imperialist wars and public services than most of English Canada. And I think there's something to be said for the productive relationship that obtained in Canadian history as detailed by John Ralston Saul in Reflections of a Siamese Twin. In that story, while there are a lot of problems (some of which I've detailed here) the story of Canada has also been one of cooperation and accommodation. It's fine too, to think of Trudeau and Chretien as sell-outs, so long as we admit that that's not the monopoly of opinion. Trudeau and Chretien often thought as dismissively of the Quebecois nationalists and for reasons as valid as those that nationalists thought poorly of them. I agree with the part of the Clarity Act that says that any referendum question has to be a clear question before it can be used as a basis for separation. I don't agree that more than 51% is  necessary to decide the issue if it's a realistic question. (I also recall that in Chretien's last federal leadership candidate's debate, the only time he got animated was when he lambasted Bouchard for the bullshit 1995 referendum question, causing Bouchard to respond with mute embarrassment.

Canada is a better place with Quebec in it. (If you don't believe that, and still want to refuse their right to separate, you're only exhibiting the same insane level of incoherence of right-wing stooges everywhere.) There's no reason for Quebec to stay in Canada if it isn't wanted. They have every right to secede if they think that they'd be better off that way. The same goes for British Columbia, Alberta, or Newfoundland and Labrador. It's not up to us in Ontario to be the father who imprisons his children in the basement to keep the family together. It's up to us as Canadians to want to make all the parts of Canada desire to stay in Canada. Ottawa shouldn't be the head-waiter to the provinces, but some of the time it should play that role, to allow the diversity of Canada to flourish.

Friday, August 10, 2012

Progressive Patriot: The First Nations

Maybe this will be Part I of an exciting series or maybe it'll be the latest thing that I started and then abandoned out of sheer disorganization and laziness. Who really knows? Only God knows and only God can judge me. Anyway, the point of this possible series is to articulate, as a Canadian who wants to make his country something he can proud of, a series of progressive positions on a number of issues and to contrast them with the right-wing or "conservative" view.

So, on the left we have the progressive idea of the First Nations in Canada: The First Nations are an unconquered, sovereign people with whom the Crown entered into treaties, wherein we got the rights to use most all of their traditional lands in return for which we would give the various First Nations guaranteed sovereignty within greatly reduced lands and we would provide them with assistance to "integrate" with the modern economy. (I can't think of a better word than "integrate." They were to hoping to become independent farmers as was the norm for people in the 19th Century.) (These efforts were deliberately sabotaged by the settler society.) They were also supposed to receive annual gifts from the Crown for having surrendered their lands. There was no end date for these gifts. We crazy leftists believe that these treaties are binding forever. We believe that the First Nations have a right to their lands retained in treaties and to full sovereignty over these lands. We would like them to be partners in building Canada with us, but they are, Constitutionally, autonomous, independent partners.

Before getting into a few details about what that entails, let's quickly dismiss with the right-wing view about the First Nations. First of all, these people tend to believe that the First Nations were conquered, and as such, that they should simply get with the program. By "getting with the program" they mean to get off the reserves (which will be abolished or rendered meaningless by being divided into individually owned slices of property). Once off the reserves, the First Nations will also be weaned off of the payments from the federal government that we aren't bound to pay them even though we've upheld treaties that said we would.

This isn't simply meant as parsimonious cruelty though. This is seen by the right-wing as "tough-love." You see, the ONLY thing holding the First Nations back, and keeping them mired in misery, suicide and addiction and unemployment, is their stubborn desire to cling to the past (which is no longer feasible) and their moral degeneration caused by their dependence upon federal government hand-outs. (At least that's how the right-wing argues in mixed company. When they think they're alone with each other, right-wingers tend to hee-haw about the First Nations in all sorts of racist ways. [See: "Girl on the Right" and the crew of human garbage at "Small Dead Animals."])

In short, the right-wing see treaties as being bothersome pieces of paper. The word of Canada is to be given lightly and solemn promises forever can be broken with impunity if the culture that the promises were made to is thought to be incapable of fighting back effectively or, probably more importantly, if that culture is owed something by us. The First Nations should be forced to give up their culture and assimilate into the wider Canadian society (which despises them).

The link about transforming the reserves from collective to individual holdings is in reference to the racist pseudo-scholar Tom Flanagan (who "advises" stephen harper in the same way that a piece of shit gives food to a fly) on Aboriginal issues. There's talk of bringing an actual bill before Parliament (the one with the stolen majority) to destroy the reserve system in Canada. Both the Toronto Star and the Globe & Mail have editorials from writers critical of it.

The Globe has "First Nations want property rights, but on our own terms" by Jody Wilson-Raybauld. (I don't have the stomach to even look at the comments section today.)
The land tenure discussion in our communities has, therefore, not been just about what is needed to make the land more marketable or provide security of tenure, but how to do so while maintaining a community and collective rights. When it comes to property systems, both domestically on or off reserve, and internationally, there are, of course, many ways to govern.
Recently, there has been talk of a proposed federal First Nations Property Ownership Act (FNPOA), which reflects a particular ideological approach to land ownership. ... First Nations are advancing innovative and sustainable approaches that will unlock capital, create partnerships and protect their lands and resources for future generations consistent with their rights and responsibilities – on their own terms. And it means the approach and ideological underpinnings of the FNPOA is simply not for them.
Then there's the Toronto Star's "Why not extend aboriginal rights to aboriginal peoples?"
First, we must stop looking at aboriginal Canadians as socioeconomic liabilities or aboriginal rights as a threat to Canadian prosperity. As the head of BMO’s aboriginal banking unit has pointed out, Canada needs the “capacity, creativity and skills” of its aboriginal citizens. Like the Quebec Cree, many of them are quietly making enormous contributions to their communities and their country, individually and collectively through mutually beneficial resource development ventures in their traditional territories.
Second, if we remove the obstacles preventing other aboriginal peoples from getting “started in modern society,” we will also save millions of tax dollars that are currently wasted on managing, bandaging or avoiding the consequences and liabilities of neglecting aboriginal peoples and their rights.
Third, implementing aboriginal rights is not a threat to Canadian unity. Quebec separatism is in decline because Québécois no longer see a threat to their “aboriginal” rights vis-à-vis English Canadian “newcomers.” Likewise, Cree separatism within Quebec is also on the decline because Cribécois — as one Cree leader put it — see good things coming out of their new relationship with Quebec. This relationship was just renewed with the signing of a regional government agreement that shares authority between Cree and non-aboriginal residents of James Bay.
Fourth, except where our dysfunctional system has allowed it, aboriginal rights are not “race-based” or “special.” Rather, they are inherent rights that require special attention, at least until the formal legal and political framework fully acknowledges and protects aboriginal peoples’ prior relationships to the land, resources and each other.
Fifth, the essence of what aboriginal peoples ask for is what non-aboriginal Canadians take for granted. Who among us worries about newcomers showing up one day and driving a bulldozer into our backyard, building a dam that will flood our farmland or community, or marginalizing us in our own homeland?
Sixth, if non-aboriginal Canadians have their “aboriginal” rights protected already, what we need to do is extend the same protection to aboriginal people. Until we do this, northern Ontario’s First Nations are right to protest, and we may finally get beyond the aboriginal vs. non-aboriginal divide, while still remaining Cree, Anishinabe, Québécois, Canadian and whatever else we may become.
So, basically, the progressive viewpoint on the First Nations in Canada is to:
  1. Recognize their treaty rights
  2. Recognize their inherently separate constitutional status as the original cultures within these lands
  3. Give them full sovereignty within their reserves
  4. Give them the control over their resources and the means to develop them in the ways they see fit so that they can be self-supporting

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Garbage Pick-up Woes

Yes! I've finally got the time to talk in detail about the pressing political-economic issues of today. Or something. Whatever.

Actually, I'll just be snotty. That's all an unhinged moonbat leftist such as myself is capable of anyway.

So, the first day of private garbage collection in Toronto wasn't all that auspicious of a debut it seems.
Jim Harnum had warned of “growing pains” delays this week and next as the company’s workers grapple with unfamiliar streets to the east.
“It’s just new. Everything is new,” Harnum said Tuesday afternoon. “There are new operators, new trucks. We cautioned everybody that when you take on 165,000 new houses, it’s not done easily. We knew that it would be slow, and we’ll get better each day — the contractor will get better each day. But it was to be expected, and we didn’t want anyone to have any false hopes that Day 1 would be exactly the same as the last day of in-house operation.”
Now, if I were a right-wing fuck-face (as opposed to a lefty faggot who didn't think Saddam Hussein had WMDs but who does think that global warming is being caused by industrial carbon emissions) I'd genuinely believe whatever glib generalities came into my head.

"If this was the public sector this wouldn't have happened. When your re-election is determined by how well you deliver, you'd take the time to instruct your workforce in all these no-brainer, so-called 'growing pains' long before the first truck rolled out that morning."

"If they had a well-paid, unionized workforce this would never have happened. If your wage is worth it, you'll work much harder and much smarter. This is what you get for treating your workers like shit."

It's a cultural thing. Right now, the hegemony is with the morons who blather about the inherent virtues and perfections of the private sector and who see any and all failure of the public sector as preordained. Just thought I'd take 15 minutes today to swim against the tide.

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Last Bash of Religion For a While

I've got a hankering to write something about any number of recent political atrocities, but no time today. So instead I thought I'd take one more bash on the useless stupidity of religion.

A lot of religion's half-baked defenders stupidly argue that religion is just a vehicle by which inevitable human stupidity operates. To call for the abandonment of religious delusion in the hopes that rational thinking will triumph and human error decrease is like King Canute ordering the tide to roll back. The fact that the same thing could be said for capitalism or patriarchy doesn't stop them from ceaselessly attacking those two dangerous relics though.

Another argument though is that while religion might undeniably do a lot of harm, it also does a great deal of good and the harm that it causes is usually inflicted upon us by the stupid amongst the religious. Again, leave religion alone because all the people who embrace this uselesss, deluded view of existence aren't stupid and are pretty much decent, ordinary people, as well as some truly admirable saints.

So, ... don't tell people that they should abandon delusions?

I present to you, the Superman Religion. I and my fellow adherents of the Superman Church believe that we are all Kryptonions from the planet Krypton and we are possessed of super-human powers as a result of the effect of the rays of Earth's red sun. We all believe we are capable of leaping tall buildings, outrunning speeding bullets, and can beat powerful locomotives in arm-wrestling, shot-put and what-not. We also believe that we should help our adopted planet and we therefore pursue truth, justice and the American way on a daily basis.

Of course, our religion is based on the probably false claims of the original church members who demonstrated all these abilities in secret 400 years ago and who wrote all the texts of our Church. None of us has ever really "tested" our faith by trying to fly from jumping off a sky-scraper or stopping an 18-wheeler from running over a puppy, or anything like that. But it certainly gives us confidence when we walk around having convinced ourselves that should we ever try to do any of those things we might just pull it off. And, the idealism of our faith inspires us to live with self-respect and as valuable members of the community.

Waitaminnit. Did I say that NONE of us has ever tried to fly or stop a truck or outrun a speeding bullet. Okay, okay, ... A FEW of the Church's membership has tried to do these things over the years. They were members of the Church, but they were obviously frauds, because they failed utterly and died. Only true Kryptonions can do these things. It's gauche though, to enter into contests with Church members to see who's a bona-fide Kryptonion and who is a wannabe.

And I see nothing whatsoever wrong with living my life according to this stupid, transparently deluded fantasy and I see no reason whatsoever to instead follow what the evidence before me and the tested claims of other informed individuals. There is simply no good reason to say that I should stop being a fucking idiot and to stop believing that I'm Superman.

Sunday, August 5, 2012

Why I Don't Like to be Moderated

I suppose that my skin is thin in places. But it's pretty fucking thick in other places. What I hate is the inability of some people to put things into some sort of context. Here's an imaginary scenario:

Troll who showed up two days ago: "I say, kill as many camel-fuckers as possible. And if torturing a few teenage boys and making 'em squeal helps us kill 'em faster, I'm all for it."

Me: "Get the fuck out of here you low-life piece-of-shit."

Clueless Moderator: "Both of you knock it off."

Saturday, August 4, 2012

A Touching Story

I shouldn't always be so depressed and cynical. Here's a story about genuine love between two guys, thrown together by life, to be father and son ...

Friday, August 3, 2012

A Salute to "Champagne Socialists"

"Champagne Socialists" or "Limousine Liberals" are political epithets that used to mean people who advocated for policies that they had no intention or danger of having to follow themselves. Today though, it is often used in a mindless way to condemn anyone of privilege who supports collectivist justice. In the "heads I win - tails you lose" logic of contemporary right-wingers, leftists who are poor are jealous losers, while leftists who are wealthy are spoiled, disconnected dilettantes. It's the current usage of the term that I'd like to address today. People who advocate ecology whilst driving SUVs really do open themselves up for criticism. But to say that a person with wealth can't have a social conscience, or that he or she simply can't advocate for better working conditions, public housing, public transit or public health care, because they're rich is just stupid.

The nice thing about privileged leftists is that, ... let me rephrase that: The thing that terrifies the right-wing about privileged leftists is that they show people like Rush Limbaugh or Margaret Wente or Sue-Ann Levy what hideous pieces of shit they are. By calling for higher taxes on themselves in order to pay for services that benefit the majority they show that it's possible to be much more human than they are. Leftists of privilege should be commended for thinking of something other than their own class interest. In fact, why should we celebrate rich people who selfishly support the politics of the wealthy? In Ayn Rand's stunted moral universe that might be admirable, but most people don't think so.

On FaceBook, I had an infuriating discussion with a woman who felt compelled to dismiss Bridgette DePape's noble action of protesting the illegitimate regime of stephen harper. To this woman, DePape is just a child of privilege who didn't really sacrifice anything. There's nothing like uselessly trashing an act of inspiring symbolism and inventing dissensions among potential allies. I prefer to celebrate when people join our side, even if they don't have to and especially if it means they're willing to make any sort of sacrifice to improve society.

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Great, GREAT Review of "Heist"

I hadn't heard of this film, or its reviewer before, but I agree with almost every darned statement made in the review. (Except for basing the relative intelligence of Mexicans and US-Americans on the quality of conversations with each country's cab-drivers.) (Especially since a lot of US cab-drivers are immigrants themselves.)

Give it a read.


Wednesday, August 1, 2012