No, not a drag queen... but imagine if it were!
How does one top claiming Paul Martin has been possessed by the devil, and that Bill C-38 is the work of said devil?
Apparently, one starts a letter-writing campaign urging Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II to order all of her government representatives world wide to refuse to ratify same-sex marriage.
“ Our beloved Queen Elizabeth II, I know that the refusal of the Governor General to give royal consent would precipitate a crisis. Millions have nowhere else to turn but you,'” Mainse wrote in a recent letter. Because apparently, broadway-themed weddings for gays and lesbians is the worst thing to happen since Hitler. Or ever. “ Please help humanity everywhere to begin a reversal of this morally and socially destructive trend,” Mainse pleads.
Wow… David Mainse really hates broadway. Or is it gays and lesbians? No matter.
Ever since the same sex marriage bill became a hot-hot-hot button issue for Canadians, Mainse and his Crossroads foundation cohorts have rarely missed an opportunity to show Canada ugly new (or, perhaps, old) sides of their character.
Take David’s latest gambit for example. He acknowledges that the refusal of royal assent would cause a “crisis”, but doesn’t seem to care much. He also begs her majesty to help “humanity” (hmmm… gays and lesbians are apparently no longer human, so says the book of God, as interpreted by our dear Davey) fight this “morally and socially destructive trend”.
Maybe it’s just me, but it seems to me that in the few weeks since Canada’s parliament passed Bill C-38 (which I rightfully heralded a triumph for Canada as a whole -- not just gays and lesbians), Canadian society has not collapsed in a puff of smoke. In fact, no frogs have fallen from the sky, no locusts have wiped out record numbers of crops, and the first-born of no MPs have been killed. Maybe god isn’t quite as pissed off about this as you assure us that he is, David. But I digress.
I think it’s actually kind of fun to watch rabid anti-same-sex-marriage activists squirm like a worm on a hook.
It’s almost as pitiful as David’s attempt at bartering with our dear Queen E.: “ Should you act in this, millions of us would surely become more fervent supporters of the monarchy than ever,” he wrote in his letter – received days before the recent Terror bombing. In the letter he also demonizes Paul Martin, claiming that he has divided the country over the issue – and that this division couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the issue itself. Nope, it’s all Paul’s fault. He also tries to play on old acquaintances, suggesting that she “probably remembers” Paul Martin Sr., who was an ambassador to the UK.
David, it’s time for you to give Ronald Reagan back his haircut and join the rest us in the 21st century. While you’re at it, wake up and smell the maple nut crunch.
Perhaps the saddest thing about religious conservatives is that they continue to assert that governments should rule, more or less, according to exclusively Christian beliefs. If some of them had their way, the Bible would be the only book of law in the land.
Which is just the answer we need: relying on religion, which at best provides us with incomplete and limited answers, to tell us how to carry on every aspect of our lives in the real world – a world of unlimited possibilities.
It seems that even as we take steps toward a new future, people like David Mainse would happily banish us back to the middle ages.
But there is one thing I do know: if David Mainse manages to defeat bill C-38, Broadway will be next.
Mark my words.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Birds of a Feather Terrorize Together
Violent protesters and Al Qaida terrorists aren't as different as you think
Question: what do the Islamic perpetrators of Thursday’s London subway bombings and those responsible for the violent G-8 protests in Scotland have in common? Answer: quite a bit, actually.
No, they aren’t acting in collusion with one another. But there are more similarities between the two than one would believe, and they circle primarily around the intentional use of violence to achieve their goals.
Both claim they’re fighting against oppression – to end the tyranny of the current patriarchy by any means necessary. Both would happily replace the current patriarchy with one of their own, and it is this that makes them all the more dangerous.
One can point to groups such as Al Qaida and see a face that is not all that different from organizations such as the Black Bloc, or (to a much lesser extent) the Earth Liberation Front – a face that threatens violence from behind a mask of anonymity. The point of it all, of course, is not violence, but fear. Fear which is to be used as a motivator in support of a political cause. It is violence under threat of further violence. As one (unnamed) anarchist promised: “This is just the start of it. Nobody wants to get arrested ahead of Wednesday. We've got a lot more planned.”
For these people, the use of violence serves a number of purposes. It is a badge of honor. It is a symbol of dedication. It is a political shortcut. More than any of this, however, it is a demonstration of defiance. And, of course, defiance breeds defiance.
There is an old saying: you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. While there is an air of naivete surrounding this parable, there is an equivalency when it comes to political activism. That is, peaceful demonstrations generally get a better response (both from the police and the public eye) than violent ones. “We want to allow the peaceful protest of the majority to take place unhindered by any rogue elements who are set on disruption and confrontation,” says Constable John Vine, speaking to press after Tuesday’s violent demonstrations in Edinburgh. “Make no bones about it, if we encounter people who are prepared to use violence to achieve their aims ... we will take robust action.”
Of course, there is always the fact that violent protests get more attention. And while one can argue that these events do more to hinder their cause than to help it, it is also true that there is no such thing as bad publicity. This is unfortunate, because it will always draw the intentions of belligerents toward violence.
Of course, some times the system does fail. The case of peaceful protesters in Vancouver who were assaulted by RCMP officers under orders from then-Prime Minister Jean Chretien comes to mind. Some times, even peaceful activists place themselves at risk of attack.
All this aside, even more so than any of these similarities, there is one other that is just as important to remember: each group is actually a minority amongst the larger groups that it claims to represent. Despite the alarmist assertations of fear mongers, the majority of Moslems are not terrorists. Furthermore, as much as political and economic conservatives would have one believe, the majority of protesters protest peacefully. To these people, a simple message must be extended: stay the course. To those who understand the power of dissent and the value of peace, keep doing as you have. There are those who appreciate what you do, for all the right reasons.
And as much as some people may want to have us believe other wise, terrorists are generally appreciated only for the wrong reasons. Ultimately, that makes all the difference.
Question: what do the Islamic perpetrators of Thursday’s London subway bombings and those responsible for the violent G-8 protests in Scotland have in common? Answer: quite a bit, actually.
No, they aren’t acting in collusion with one another. But there are more similarities between the two than one would believe, and they circle primarily around the intentional use of violence to achieve their goals.
Both claim they’re fighting against oppression – to end the tyranny of the current patriarchy by any means necessary. Both would happily replace the current patriarchy with one of their own, and it is this that makes them all the more dangerous.
One can point to groups such as Al Qaida and see a face that is not all that different from organizations such as the Black Bloc, or (to a much lesser extent) the Earth Liberation Front – a face that threatens violence from behind a mask of anonymity. The point of it all, of course, is not violence, but fear. Fear which is to be used as a motivator in support of a political cause. It is violence under threat of further violence. As one (unnamed) anarchist promised: “This is just the start of it. Nobody wants to get arrested ahead of Wednesday. We've got a lot more planned.”
For these people, the use of violence serves a number of purposes. It is a badge of honor. It is a symbol of dedication. It is a political shortcut. More than any of this, however, it is a demonstration of defiance. And, of course, defiance breeds defiance.
There is an old saying: you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. While there is an air of naivete surrounding this parable, there is an equivalency when it comes to political activism. That is, peaceful demonstrations generally get a better response (both from the police and the public eye) than violent ones. “We want to allow the peaceful protest of the majority to take place unhindered by any rogue elements who are set on disruption and confrontation,” says Constable John Vine, speaking to press after Tuesday’s violent demonstrations in Edinburgh. “Make no bones about it, if we encounter people who are prepared to use violence to achieve their aims ... we will take robust action.”
Of course, there is always the fact that violent protests get more attention. And while one can argue that these events do more to hinder their cause than to help it, it is also true that there is no such thing as bad publicity. This is unfortunate, because it will always draw the intentions of belligerents toward violence.
Of course, some times the system does fail. The case of peaceful protesters in Vancouver who were assaulted by RCMP officers under orders from then-Prime Minister Jean Chretien comes to mind. Some times, even peaceful activists place themselves at risk of attack.
All this aside, even more so than any of these similarities, there is one other that is just as important to remember: each group is actually a minority amongst the larger groups that it claims to represent. Despite the alarmist assertations of fear mongers, the majority of Moslems are not terrorists. Furthermore, as much as political and economic conservatives would have one believe, the majority of protesters protest peacefully. To these people, a simple message must be extended: stay the course. To those who understand the power of dissent and the value of peace, keep doing as you have. There are those who appreciate what you do, for all the right reasons.
And as much as some people may want to have us believe other wise, terrorists are generally appreciated only for the wrong reasons. Ultimately, that makes all the difference.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Alberta's Moment of Truth
To much of Canada, Alberta is not seen as a very nice place.
In fact, there are those in Canada who consider Alberta to be everything that is wrong with Canada. They consider Alberta to be a bastion of lassaiz-faire economics, bigotry, and that most despised of c-words, ‘conservatism’.
While this obviously overlooks how complex Alberta actually is, there is no question that many Canadians (many of them residing in Quebec) perceive Alberta this way. Now, to some, it might seem like a good idea to attempt to dispel these myths.
But apparently not to the Alberta government. Because even two days after the passing of Bill C-38, the government of Alberta still clings to a fight it acknowledges it cannot win – and does this simply for the principle of the fight.
Today’s tale takes us to the Provincial Legislature Building in Edmonton, where Alberta justice minister has promised (of course) to fight Canada’s new same-sex marriage law – even if the fighting is all for naught.
"The fact is that the definition of marriage appears en route to be changed in two weeks' time," acknowledged Justice Minister Ron Stevens. "It will then become law in Alberta. "There's no doubt in my view that the federal legislation is paramount."
However, this does not mean that the fight is over for those struggling for equal recognition before the law. The government of Alberta has come up with a truly insidious method of resisting the move toward equality for homosexuals.
In the name of protecting religious freedom, the government of Alberta is allegedly willing to cease performing civil marriages, leaving marriage as the exclusive domain of religious institutions. Which may almost seem all right. But there is a problem. If the only place to marry in Alberta will now be within the walls of a church, where will, say… atheists get married, should they choose? I guess they can’t.
So, then, in the name of protecting religious freedom, the government of Alberta is limiting religious freedom?
Doesn’t really make sense, does it?
Two days ago I wrote that the passage or failure of the same-sex marriage bill represented a moment of truth for Canada. Today, I believe that the tactics the government of Alberta is willing to resort to in order to oppose same sex marriage represent the same moment of truth.
Can Alberta honestly deny charges of bigotry so long as it continues to feed the homophobic hysteria? The answer is, simply, no. Because if the passing of Bill C-38 represents a triumph for equality in Canada, then the Alberta government certainly seems like a thief in the night, ready to snatch it away.
Political Scientist Kieth Brownsey suggests that the move is purely political in nature. "The Focus on the Family groups, the religious right, the fundamentalists of one sort or another, certainly need to see that this government is acting in what they perceive to be their best interests," he says.
However, there is hope. Out of 61 MPs expected to meet to discuss blocking same-sex marriage in Alberta, only eight actually showed, suggesting that perhaps there are those within the Alberta Progressive Conservative party who possess the courage to tread forward, instead of regressing into the past.
But perhaps most disturbing are the words of Alberta Alliance justice critic Marilyn Burns: “Alberta has the constitutional authority to legislate that unions only between a man and a woman be ... issued marriage licenses.”
Alberta’s moment of truth may turn out to be an ugly one yet.
In fact, there are those in Canada who consider Alberta to be everything that is wrong with Canada. They consider Alberta to be a bastion of lassaiz-faire economics, bigotry, and that most despised of c-words, ‘conservatism’.
While this obviously overlooks how complex Alberta actually is, there is no question that many Canadians (many of them residing in Quebec) perceive Alberta this way. Now, to some, it might seem like a good idea to attempt to dispel these myths.
But apparently not to the Alberta government. Because even two days after the passing of Bill C-38, the government of Alberta still clings to a fight it acknowledges it cannot win – and does this simply for the principle of the fight.
Today’s tale takes us to the Provincial Legislature Building in Edmonton, where Alberta justice minister has promised (of course) to fight Canada’s new same-sex marriage law – even if the fighting is all for naught.
"The fact is that the definition of marriage appears en route to be changed in two weeks' time," acknowledged Justice Minister Ron Stevens. "It will then become law in Alberta. "There's no doubt in my view that the federal legislation is paramount."
However, this does not mean that the fight is over for those struggling for equal recognition before the law. The government of Alberta has come up with a truly insidious method of resisting the move toward equality for homosexuals.
In the name of protecting religious freedom, the government of Alberta is allegedly willing to cease performing civil marriages, leaving marriage as the exclusive domain of religious institutions. Which may almost seem all right. But there is a problem. If the only place to marry in Alberta will now be within the walls of a church, where will, say… atheists get married, should they choose? I guess they can’t.
So, then, in the name of protecting religious freedom, the government of Alberta is limiting religious freedom?
Doesn’t really make sense, does it?
Two days ago I wrote that the passage or failure of the same-sex marriage bill represented a moment of truth for Canada. Today, I believe that the tactics the government of Alberta is willing to resort to in order to oppose same sex marriage represent the same moment of truth.
Can Alberta honestly deny charges of bigotry so long as it continues to feed the homophobic hysteria? The answer is, simply, no. Because if the passing of Bill C-38 represents a triumph for equality in Canada, then the Alberta government certainly seems like a thief in the night, ready to snatch it away.
Political Scientist Kieth Brownsey suggests that the move is purely political in nature. "The Focus on the Family groups, the religious right, the fundamentalists of one sort or another, certainly need to see that this government is acting in what they perceive to be their best interests," he says.
However, there is hope. Out of 61 MPs expected to meet to discuss blocking same-sex marriage in Alberta, only eight actually showed, suggesting that perhaps there are those within the Alberta Progressive Conservative party who possess the courage to tread forward, instead of regressing into the past.
But perhaps most disturbing are the words of Alberta Alliance justice critic Marilyn Burns: “Alberta has the constitutional authority to legislate that unions only between a man and a woman be ... issued marriage licenses.”
Alberta’s moment of truth may turn out to be an ugly one yet.
Reunion Bloody Reunion
The time has come for Black Sabbath's REAL frontman to get his due
Now, maybe it’s just me, but it seems that when a lot bands say “farewell tour”, they don’t seem to understand what the word “farewell” means.
After their highly publicized farewell tour of a couple years ago, Kiss has reunited and are touring this year with Aerosmith. The Rolling Stones have announced their still-delayed retirement about a gazillion bajillion times, and even Black Sabbath have united for one last one last tour (on this year’s Ozzfest bill).
But sadly, there are some fans whose reunion desires are not being met. I say this because I know that somewhere there is somebody who yearns in vain for a Black Sabbath reunion…
…with Ronnie James Dio.
Yes, Dio. DIO!!! The man who so deftly filled Ozzy’s shoes after his departure from Black Sabbath. The former front man of Rainbow. The man who sang on such Sabbath classics as “Country Girl” and “Time Machine” (the Wayne’s World version) should return to fill the shoes of Ozzy.
I mean, sure, Ozzy Osborne is the man most people associate with such “classics” as “Paranoid”, “Snowblind” and “War Pigs”, but who will fill Ozzy’s role when he’s busy filming another season of The Osbornes, or perhaps even a Pepsi Commerical?
Dio can fill Ozzy’s shoes. And let’s face it: he could use the work. Ronnie James Dio has released seven CDs in the last five years alone, and when was the last time you heard a Dio tune on the radio? Let’s be honest, now. You’ve forgotten that he ever existed, haven’t you. HAVEN’T YOU?
Well, maybe no one can blame you. Some may claim that Dio is nothing more than a third-rate foot note in heavy metal history. Some may claim that Dio is more than just a little pale in comparison to Ozzy. Some may even think that Dio is dead. I mean, come on – he might as well be for all intensive purposes. Because every time Black Sabbath plans a reunion, who do they call? Not Dio. And it just isn’t fair.
I, from the bottom of my heart, urge you to write Tommy Iommi or perhaps even “Geezer” Butler and urge them to hold a Sabbath Reunion with Ronnie James Dio.
Because someone out there is waiting for this one… but surely not I…
Now, maybe it’s just me, but it seems that when a lot bands say “farewell tour”, they don’t seem to understand what the word “farewell” means.
After their highly publicized farewell tour of a couple years ago, Kiss has reunited and are touring this year with Aerosmith. The Rolling Stones have announced their still-delayed retirement about a gazillion bajillion times, and even Black Sabbath have united for one last one last tour (on this year’s Ozzfest bill).
But sadly, there are some fans whose reunion desires are not being met. I say this because I know that somewhere there is somebody who yearns in vain for a Black Sabbath reunion…
…with Ronnie James Dio.
Yes, Dio. DIO!!! The man who so deftly filled Ozzy’s shoes after his departure from Black Sabbath. The former front man of Rainbow. The man who sang on such Sabbath classics as “Country Girl” and “Time Machine” (the Wayne’s World version) should return to fill the shoes of Ozzy.
I mean, sure, Ozzy Osborne is the man most people associate with such “classics” as “Paranoid”, “Snowblind” and “War Pigs”, but who will fill Ozzy’s role when he’s busy filming another season of The Osbornes, or perhaps even a Pepsi Commerical?
Dio can fill Ozzy’s shoes. And let’s face it: he could use the work. Ronnie James Dio has released seven CDs in the last five years alone, and when was the last time you heard a Dio tune on the radio? Let’s be honest, now. You’ve forgotten that he ever existed, haven’t you. HAVEN’T YOU?
Well, maybe no one can blame you. Some may claim that Dio is nothing more than a third-rate foot note in heavy metal history. Some may claim that Dio is more than just a little pale in comparison to Ozzy. Some may even think that Dio is dead. I mean, come on – he might as well be for all intensive purposes. Because every time Black Sabbath plans a reunion, who do they call? Not Dio. And it just isn’t fair.
I, from the bottom of my heart, urge you to write Tommy Iommi or perhaps even “Geezer” Butler and urge them to hold a Sabbath Reunion with Ronnie James Dio.
Because someone out there is waiting for this one… but surely not I…
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Canada's Moment of Truth
For Canada, today (June 28, 2005) can be one of two things.
It can either be an affirmation of Canada’s commitment to freedom and equality for all of its citizens (regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation), or it can be a signal that we need to go back to the drawing board. Either way, a moment of truth is upon us.
Long before the issue began to works its way through the Supreme Court of Canada, this issue has been contentious and divisive. On one side of the debate are political and social progressives, who believe that same sex marriage represents an equality for gays and lesbians that they have never before possessed. On the other side are a collection of religious groups and political conservatives who oppose the “redefinition of traditional marriage”. They argue that changing the legal definition of marriage is a direct affront to the traditions this country was founded upon.
But in reality, what are the traditions this country was founded upon? Some people say “Christianity” and others say “freedom”. I can’t truthfully speak for anyone on this particular matter. I can, however, speak for myself.
In my opinion, Canada was founded under the principle of responsible government. Over time, however, we have added many traditions around this simple idea to create the “Canadian tradition”. With the advent of Canadian Multiculturalism, one of the traditions Canada was founded upon became the idea of a nation for all people. Inevitably, the time has come that we recognize that this moves beyond the simplicity of religion and ethnicity. In order to be a nation for all people, we must also recognize and legitimize the differences in people’s sexual orientation.
So, where in this does same sex marriage fit? That’s a bit of a complex question.
There are a number of issues at play with same sex marriage, and one of them certainly is money. There is no reason why homosexual couples should not be entitled to the same legal protections and benefits offered to heterosexual couples, and one of these ideas is the civil marriage – a marriage in the eyes of the state, as opposed to only the eyes of god.
Perhaps a greater issue at play with same sex marriage is the issue of legitimization. Until the government of Canada has allowed same sex marriage, it has not yet recognized the legitimacy of homosexual relationships, and thus has not yet recognized the legitimacy of homosexuals themselves.
Until this has happened, how can we claim that homosexuals are fully a part of Canadian society? It’s a simple answer: we can’t. And the very idea of trying to avoid this is preposterous – whether we like it or not, homosexuals are a part of Canadian society, and that isn’t going to change.
Critics can call same sex marriage whatever they want. They can call it “social engineering”, but other attempts at “social engineering” have historically been at least modest successes. Perhaps the most notable example of this is the struggle for black civil rights in the United States. Which also brings up the point that anyone who believes that same-sex marriage will miraculously usher in a new age of tolerance and harmony is incredibly naïve. However, everything has to start somewhere.
Critics can also claim that same sex marriage is “undemocratic”. However, even if they could demonstrate that a significant majority of Canadians were opposed to same sex marriage, they would still be wrong. One of the hallmarks of a democratic society is found in the way that it protects the rights and interests of all its citizens, regardless of whether or not they belong to a “minority”. Furthermore, anyone who doesn’t realize that the majority has become a mythical, nonexistent creature in Canada has failed to recognize the changing face of Canada.
Critics can also claim that same sex marriage poses a threat to religious freedom. While this argument may be the most compelling and most valid they have proposed, we must also realize that same sex marriage has provided us with a unique opportunity to separate church and state. After all, civil counselors are not religious officials. They have the capacity to marry couples in the eyes of the state, but not in the eyes of god – just as religious officials have the power to marry couples in the eyes of god, but not in the eyes of the state.
Today, Canada will make a choice. It will either take a step forward toward equality amongst all of its citizens, or it will take a step back. Either way, Canada’s journey will continue.
It can either be an affirmation of Canada’s commitment to freedom and equality for all of its citizens (regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation), or it can be a signal that we need to go back to the drawing board. Either way, a moment of truth is upon us.
Long before the issue began to works its way through the Supreme Court of Canada, this issue has been contentious and divisive. On one side of the debate are political and social progressives, who believe that same sex marriage represents an equality for gays and lesbians that they have never before possessed. On the other side are a collection of religious groups and political conservatives who oppose the “redefinition of traditional marriage”. They argue that changing the legal definition of marriage is a direct affront to the traditions this country was founded upon.
But in reality, what are the traditions this country was founded upon? Some people say “Christianity” and others say “freedom”. I can’t truthfully speak for anyone on this particular matter. I can, however, speak for myself.
In my opinion, Canada was founded under the principle of responsible government. Over time, however, we have added many traditions around this simple idea to create the “Canadian tradition”. With the advent of Canadian Multiculturalism, one of the traditions Canada was founded upon became the idea of a nation for all people. Inevitably, the time has come that we recognize that this moves beyond the simplicity of religion and ethnicity. In order to be a nation for all people, we must also recognize and legitimize the differences in people’s sexual orientation.
So, where in this does same sex marriage fit? That’s a bit of a complex question.
There are a number of issues at play with same sex marriage, and one of them certainly is money. There is no reason why homosexual couples should not be entitled to the same legal protections and benefits offered to heterosexual couples, and one of these ideas is the civil marriage – a marriage in the eyes of the state, as opposed to only the eyes of god.
Perhaps a greater issue at play with same sex marriage is the issue of legitimization. Until the government of Canada has allowed same sex marriage, it has not yet recognized the legitimacy of homosexual relationships, and thus has not yet recognized the legitimacy of homosexuals themselves.
Until this has happened, how can we claim that homosexuals are fully a part of Canadian society? It’s a simple answer: we can’t. And the very idea of trying to avoid this is preposterous – whether we like it or not, homosexuals are a part of Canadian society, and that isn’t going to change.
Critics can call same sex marriage whatever they want. They can call it “social engineering”, but other attempts at “social engineering” have historically been at least modest successes. Perhaps the most notable example of this is the struggle for black civil rights in the United States. Which also brings up the point that anyone who believes that same-sex marriage will miraculously usher in a new age of tolerance and harmony is incredibly naïve. However, everything has to start somewhere.
Critics can also claim that same sex marriage is “undemocratic”. However, even if they could demonstrate that a significant majority of Canadians were opposed to same sex marriage, they would still be wrong. One of the hallmarks of a democratic society is found in the way that it protects the rights and interests of all its citizens, regardless of whether or not they belong to a “minority”. Furthermore, anyone who doesn’t realize that the majority has become a mythical, nonexistent creature in Canada has failed to recognize the changing face of Canada.
Critics can also claim that same sex marriage poses a threat to religious freedom. While this argument may be the most compelling and most valid they have proposed, we must also realize that same sex marriage has provided us with a unique opportunity to separate church and state. After all, civil counselors are not religious officials. They have the capacity to marry couples in the eyes of the state, but not in the eyes of god – just as religious officials have the power to marry couples in the eyes of god, but not in the eyes of the state.
Today, Canada will make a choice. It will either take a step forward toward equality amongst all of its citizens, or it will take a step back. Either way, Canada’s journey will continue.
Flush the Goddamn Toilet
Or I Will Hurt You
There once was a time when going to the bathroom was much simpler. You’d simply walk outdoors, trudge through the six feet of snow separating you from the outhouse, and do your business; and aside from the whole holding your breath thing, it was all good.
Ah, the good old days.
Well, maybe "old" fits more so than "good", but that’s a matter of opinion.
Times sure have changed. Today, miraculous advancements in the technology of indoor plumbing have provided us with sanitary convenience that is nothing short of astounding. Now, we in the western world (and Japan, probably, and China
maybe) are blessed with waste repositories that will dispose of our waste (both number one AND two) for us, thus eliminating the typical life-strangling stench anyone who has ever been camping (real camping, sans creature comfort-laden Winnebago) is familiar with.
Proper use of toilet facilities is a skill that is so important for day-to-day life that children are taught this skill very early in life.
Which, kids, brings us to the point of this little tirade: flush the frickin’ toilet. Two year olds the world over master this little trick every day, thus making it hard to believe university students – the alleged would-be elite of our society – cannot manage it.
Maybe this is more of an issue regarding the guys than the gals – although the "potty posse" phenomenon continues to astound males the world over.
This little aversion to toilet flushing might be considered sad, or perhaps even tragic, if it wasn’t so utterly pathetic – and disgusting. Surely, there is nothing that delights a man more than going to the toilet to find its previous user has left him a little "gift".
It seems disturbingly like some sort of frat-boy prank gone horribly too far, and like most frat-boy jokes, it isn’t funny. Sure, everyone likes a little potty humor every now and then, but this is just too much.
Freudian psychologists might even point to behavior like this as the manifestation of an "anal expulsive personality", which is basically fancy talk for "a person having shit himself a lot as a kid". Now, doesn’t that fill you with an overwhelming sense of pride? Sure, maybe it seems "rebellious" or perhaps even "bad-ass", but given that there’s no one around to witness it, it’s simply "cowardly", not to mention "ignorant".
Believe it or not, there are people in underdeveloped countries who would love to flush that toilet. Shit, they’d love to have that toilet. After all, modern toiletries are a privilege, young man. Furthermore, some minor historical episodes such as, oh, say, the bubonic plague serve as lessons about the importance of proper sanitation. Nothing pits something into prospective quite as much as a deadly pandemic.
All kidding aside, just flush the damn toilet. It isn’t hard to do, and it just might make the next guy’s washroom experience marginally more pleasurable. Unless he has one of those shit fetishes. In which case, let’s not go there.
There once was a time when going to the bathroom was much simpler. You’d simply walk outdoors, trudge through the six feet of snow separating you from the outhouse, and do your business; and aside from the whole holding your breath thing, it was all good.
Ah, the good old days.
Well, maybe "old" fits more so than "good", but that’s a matter of opinion.
Times sure have changed. Today, miraculous advancements in the technology of indoor plumbing have provided us with sanitary convenience that is nothing short of astounding. Now, we in the western world (and Japan, probably, and China
maybe) are blessed with waste repositories that will dispose of our waste (both number one AND two) for us, thus eliminating the typical life-strangling stench anyone who has ever been camping (real camping, sans creature comfort-laden Winnebago) is familiar with.
Proper use of toilet facilities is a skill that is so important for day-to-day life that children are taught this skill very early in life.
Which, kids, brings us to the point of this little tirade: flush the frickin’ toilet. Two year olds the world over master this little trick every day, thus making it hard to believe university students – the alleged would-be elite of our society – cannot manage it.
Maybe this is more of an issue regarding the guys than the gals – although the "potty posse" phenomenon continues to astound males the world over.
This little aversion to toilet flushing might be considered sad, or perhaps even tragic, if it wasn’t so utterly pathetic – and disgusting. Surely, there is nothing that delights a man more than going to the toilet to find its previous user has left him a little "gift".
It seems disturbingly like some sort of frat-boy prank gone horribly too far, and like most frat-boy jokes, it isn’t funny. Sure, everyone likes a little potty humor every now and then, but this is just too much.
Freudian psychologists might even point to behavior like this as the manifestation of an "anal expulsive personality", which is basically fancy talk for "a person having shit himself a lot as a kid". Now, doesn’t that fill you with an overwhelming sense of pride? Sure, maybe it seems "rebellious" or perhaps even "bad-ass", but given that there’s no one around to witness it, it’s simply "cowardly", not to mention "ignorant".
Believe it or not, there are people in underdeveloped countries who would love to flush that toilet. Shit, they’d love to have that toilet. After all, modern toiletries are a privilege, young man. Furthermore, some minor historical episodes such as, oh, say, the bubonic plague serve as lessons about the importance of proper sanitation. Nothing pits something into prospective quite as much as a deadly pandemic.
All kidding aside, just flush the damn toilet. It isn’t hard to do, and it just might make the next guy’s washroom experience marginally more pleasurable. Unless he has one of those shit fetishes. In which case, let’s not go there.
Just a Bit of Clarification
I Have (at least temporarily) Severed ties with The Gateway
Some of you who read the nexus may be aware of this, and some may not, but over the past year I was involved with the University of Alberta student newspaper, The Gateway.
Some of those who were aware of this may or may not have noticed that I have not been featured in any issues of The Gateway since the March 31, 2005 issue of The Gateway (not including the "Raging Bone" joke issue, which apparently isn't counted as an official issue).
Regardless, it is with some small amount of regret that I should announce that, as of four weeks ago, I made the decision to sever ties with The Gateway -- at least temporarily.
There are actually a number of reasons why I have chosen to do this, among them issues which are practical and professional, as well as deeply personal in nature. While I can't say with any confidence whether or not I will choose to return to The Gateway come fall, the opinion articles that I publish here on the Nexus will remain largely unchanged... as if you were worried.
Regardless, as I have reacquired all the unpublished copy I submitted to The Gateway, The Gateway's loss will be the Nexus' gain. I'll probably drop most of them in the weeks to come.
Anyhow, to all of those who have read: thank you. To all of those will read: thank you. And to all of those who are offended: fuck you.
...I mean, thank you. I knew there was a reason I was doing this.
http://www.gateway.ualberta.ca/view.php?aid=3389
http://www.gateway.ualberta.ca/view.php?aid=3538
http://www.gateway.ualberta.ca/view.php?aid=3613
http://www.gateway.ualberta.ca/view.php?aid=4165
http://www.gateway.ualberta.ca/view.php?aid=4324
Some of you who read the nexus may be aware of this, and some may not, but over the past year I was involved with the University of Alberta student newspaper, The Gateway.
Some of those who were aware of this may or may not have noticed that I have not been featured in any issues of The Gateway since the March 31, 2005 issue of The Gateway (not including the "Raging Bone" joke issue, which apparently isn't counted as an official issue).
Regardless, it is with some small amount of regret that I should announce that, as of four weeks ago, I made the decision to sever ties with The Gateway -- at least temporarily.
There are actually a number of reasons why I have chosen to do this, among them issues which are practical and professional, as well as deeply personal in nature. While I can't say with any confidence whether or not I will choose to return to The Gateway come fall, the opinion articles that I publish here on the Nexus will remain largely unchanged... as if you were worried.
Regardless, as I have reacquired all the unpublished copy I submitted to The Gateway, The Gateway's loss will be the Nexus' gain. I'll probably drop most of them in the weeks to come.
Anyhow, to all of those who have read: thank you. To all of those will read: thank you. And to all of those who are offended: fuck you.
...I mean, thank you. I knew there was a reason I was doing this.
http://www.gateway.ualberta.ca/view.php?aid=3389
http://www.gateway.ualberta.ca/view.php?aid=3538
http://www.gateway.ualberta.ca/view.php?aid=3613
http://www.gateway.ualberta.ca/view.php?aid=4165
http://www.gateway.ualberta.ca/view.php?aid=4324
Monday, June 27, 2005
PETA Caught With Blood On Its Hands
What's that, Lassie? PETA Dumping Animals in Dumpsters? Lead the Way... or Just Read On...
Oh, the irony. Oh, the delicious, juicy, tasty, savory irony.
“Animals are not ours to eat,” the PETA website (www.peta.org) lectures us. “ Animals are not ours to wear. Animals are not ours to be experiment on. Animals are not ours to use for our entertainment. Animals are not ours to exploit.”
However, animals are apparently ours to kill and leave in dumpsters.
That’s uh… quite a moral stand you’re taking there…
That’s right, the people who seek to scare you into following their beliefs (“Eating meat causes cancer”), shame you into following their beliefs (“Torture tuesday”), or just outwardly distort the issues (“Feeding children meat is child abuse”) has egg on its face and blood on its hands, as two of its employees, Andrew Benjamin Cook and Adria Joy Hinkle are currently working their way through the North Carolina courts on charges of animal cruelty.
Cook and Hinkle (both paid employees of PETA, who were charged June 16), it seems, had been euthanizing healthy animals and dumping them in the garbage dumpster at a Piggly Wiggly supermarket. Among the animals, apparently were kittens, mother cats, and puppies.
That’s right… apparently, PETA kills puppies. Well, not PETA, only their paid employees.
In a June 17 news conference, PETA president Ingrid Kewkirk condemned the actions of Cook and Hinkle, saying, “ [It’s] hideous, it’s wrong, and it never should have happened.”
“That conduct disgusts us,” Newkirk said of the dumping. “It shames us. It violates our own protocols, it happened without our knowledge and can never be allowed to happen again. But our work is important and our work must go on,” Newkirk added. However, if this conduct really does disgust PETA, they’ve certainly gone out of their way to show it.
On the aforemention www.PETA.org, there is no mention of the incident whatsoever, and on Newkirk’s weblog (www.ingridnewkirk.com), Newkirk saw fit to post some fish cartoons (http://www.ingridnewkirk.com/archives/2005/06/more_fish_comic.html), as well as what is apparently supposed to pass as an amusing photograph (http://www.ingridnewkirk.com/archives/2005/06/slow_and_steady.html), but no mention of this very serious matter.
Which may not be so surprising. According to “Better Dead than Fed” author Debra Saunders, “ PETA always has been about killing animals. A 2003 New Yorker profile included PETA top dog Ingrid Newkirk’s story of how she became involved in animal rights after a shelter put down stray kittens she brought there. So she went to work for an animal shelter in the 1970s, where, she explained: ‘I would go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself. Because I couldn’t stand to let them go through (other workers abusing the animals). I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day.’ ”
Sounds an awful lot like “ in order to save the village, we had to burn it,” doesn’t it? Maybe it’s just me. But why does an organization like PETA, which claims to be dedicated to the protection of animals, euthanize them at the horrific rate that PETA does?
Too often, it comes down to money. If PETA were to use more of its money to feed and care for animals, it might not have as much money to finance its massive propaganda campaigns. This, of course, would be a tremendous inconvenience. Also, this would cost them the ability to maintain as many paid employees, which would force them to rely more recruiting volunteers, which is also inconvenient. Maybe the lives of animals just aren’t worth it.
This attitude isn’t surprising to find in an organization that has obviously never felt an ounce of embarrassment in aiming its propaganda campaigns at anyone they think they can manipulate – including children.
Don’t get me wrong. Animal cruelty is a very serious issue. However, there is something rotten at the core of PETA, and it’s only getting worse. Among other things, allegations are surfacing that link PETA to potentially violent extremist groups like the Animal Liberation Front, a group which at best can be considered good-intentioned, but rather reckless.
Maybe its time that PETA was disbanded in favor of a more widespread, volunteer-driven, community-oriented approach to protecting animals – no extreme political agenda, just helping animals through local Humane Societies and SPCAs. No hypocritical Ingrid Newkirks, just regular people doing their part to meet their responsibilities to animals.
But most of all, no more “final solution” approach to caring for animals.
Oh, the irony. Oh, the delicious, juicy, tasty, savory irony.
“Animals are not ours to eat,” the PETA website (www.peta.org) lectures us. “ Animals are not ours to wear. Animals are not ours to be experiment on. Animals are not ours to use for our entertainment. Animals are not ours to exploit.”
However, animals are apparently ours to kill and leave in dumpsters.
That’s uh… quite a moral stand you’re taking there…
That’s right, the people who seek to scare you into following their beliefs (“Eating meat causes cancer”), shame you into following their beliefs (“Torture tuesday”), or just outwardly distort the issues (“Feeding children meat is child abuse”) has egg on its face and blood on its hands, as two of its employees, Andrew Benjamin Cook and Adria Joy Hinkle are currently working their way through the North Carolina courts on charges of animal cruelty.
Cook and Hinkle (both paid employees of PETA, who were charged June 16), it seems, had been euthanizing healthy animals and dumping them in the garbage dumpster at a Piggly Wiggly supermarket. Among the animals, apparently were kittens, mother cats, and puppies.
That’s right… apparently, PETA kills puppies. Well, not PETA, only their paid employees.
In a June 17 news conference, PETA president Ingrid Kewkirk condemned the actions of Cook and Hinkle, saying, “ [It’s] hideous, it’s wrong, and it never should have happened.”
“That conduct disgusts us,” Newkirk said of the dumping. “It shames us. It violates our own protocols, it happened without our knowledge and can never be allowed to happen again. But our work is important and our work must go on,” Newkirk added. However, if this conduct really does disgust PETA, they’ve certainly gone out of their way to show it.
On the aforemention www.PETA.org, there is no mention of the incident whatsoever, and on Newkirk’s weblog (www.ingridnewkirk.com), Newkirk saw fit to post some fish cartoons (http://www.ingridnewkirk.com/archives/2005/06/more_fish_comic.html), as well as what is apparently supposed to pass as an amusing photograph (http://www.ingridnewkirk.com/archives/2005/06/slow_and_steady.html), but no mention of this very serious matter.
Which may not be so surprising. According to “Better Dead than Fed” author Debra Saunders, “ PETA always has been about killing animals. A 2003 New Yorker profile included PETA top dog Ingrid Newkirk’s story of how she became involved in animal rights after a shelter put down stray kittens she brought there. So she went to work for an animal shelter in the 1970s, where, she explained: ‘I would go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself. Because I couldn’t stand to let them go through (other workers abusing the animals). I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day.’ ”
Sounds an awful lot like “ in order to save the village, we had to burn it,” doesn’t it? Maybe it’s just me. But why does an organization like PETA, which claims to be dedicated to the protection of animals, euthanize them at the horrific rate that PETA does?
Too often, it comes down to money. If PETA were to use more of its money to feed and care for animals, it might not have as much money to finance its massive propaganda campaigns. This, of course, would be a tremendous inconvenience. Also, this would cost them the ability to maintain as many paid employees, which would force them to rely more recruiting volunteers, which is also inconvenient. Maybe the lives of animals just aren’t worth it.
This attitude isn’t surprising to find in an organization that has obviously never felt an ounce of embarrassment in aiming its propaganda campaigns at anyone they think they can manipulate – including children.
Don’t get me wrong. Animal cruelty is a very serious issue. However, there is something rotten at the core of PETA, and it’s only getting worse. Among other things, allegations are surfacing that link PETA to potentially violent extremist groups like the Animal Liberation Front, a group which at best can be considered good-intentioned, but rather reckless.
Maybe its time that PETA was disbanded in favor of a more widespread, volunteer-driven, community-oriented approach to protecting animals – no extreme political agenda, just helping animals through local Humane Societies and SPCAs. No hypocritical Ingrid Newkirks, just regular people doing their part to meet their responsibilities to animals.
But most of all, no more “final solution” approach to caring for animals.
Friday, June 24, 2005
The Fine Art of Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is
“Black people don’t scare me,” Donald Rumsfeld says. “ For one thing, their T-shirts shrink after washing.”
Huh? Does that make any sense to you? Oh, wait.
“For one thing, this woman’s name is not Assata Shakur,” Rumsfeld continues (I knew I was missing something), “it’s Joanne Chesimard. And finally, the United States government has just offered one million—dollars, not t-shirts—to anyone who captures her. She’s a convicted cop killer, for christsake.”
We are speaking of course, about Assata Shakur, exiled African American activist, self-proclaimed “20th century escaped slave” and… terrorist(?).
One June 8, 2005, Assata Shakur made what some may or may not consider a generous bounty on the head of the U.S. Secretary of Defense: one million “HANDS OF ASSATA” T-shirts to anyone who can capture Rumsfeld and deliver him to the International Criminal Court to faces of war crimes related to the American invasion and occupation of Iraq. So, now, Rummy makes a lot more sense. Well, just a little.
There is no question that the topic of Assata Shakur is a fairly hot one right now. In in 1973, Shakur was convicted of the murder of New Jersey state patrolman Werner Forrester under circumstances that would probably make Rubin “Hurricane” Carter blush.
Of course, there is probably no one who can tell the tale better than Assata Shakur herself: “On May 2, 1973 I, along with Zayd Malik Shakur and Sundiata Acoli were stopped on the New Jersey Turnpike, supposedly for a "faulty tail light." Sundiata Acoli got out of the car to determine why we were stopped. Zayd and I remained in the car. State trooper Harper then came to the car, opened the door and began to question us. Because we were black, and riding in a car with Vermont license plates, he claimed he became "suspicious." He then drew his gun, pointed it at us, and told us to put our hands up in the air, in front of us, where he could see them. I complied and in a split second, there was a sound that came from outside the car, there was a sudden movement, and I was shot once with my arms held up in the air, and then once again from the back. Zayd Malik Shakur was later killed, trooper Werner Forester was killed, and even though trooper Harper admitted that he shot and killed Zayd Malik Shakur, under the New Jersey felony murder law, I was charged with killing both Zayd Malik Shakur, who was my closest friend and comrade, and charged in the death of trooper Forester.”
The trials that followed were wrought with issues. In 1973, for example, Assata’s trial in Middlesex county was stopped due to overwhelming racism – one juror was even heard to remark “if she’s black, she’s guilty.”
The kanagroo court case was beset by all sorts of extremists. The American National Socialist White Person’s party even protested outside the courthouse, urging people to “support white cops”. In 1977, Assata would finally be convicted by an all-white jury.
Assata would escape from prison in 1979, and flee to Cuba in 1981. The Cuban government of Fidel Castro (obviously recognizing a P.R. windfall when they see it – doing what may be the right thing for the wrong reasons) granted Shakur refuge, and the matter has been a source of political strife ever since.
In May, 2005, the United States Government raised the $150,000 bounty on Shakur to an even $1 million, and continues to petition Cuba to return the “terrorist” Assata Shakur (it should be noted that Shakur was reputed to be the “Bandit Queen” of the Black Panthers). However, this alone should not be enough to make Shakur guilty of murder. But she must be guilty… she was convicted, right?
Rapper Mos Def disagrees: “ There are those who believe that being convicted of a crime makes you guilty. But that imposes an assumption of infallibility upon our criminal justice system. When Assata Shakur was convicted of killing Werner Forester, not only had the Black Panther Party been labeled by then F.B.I. director, J. Edgar Hoover, as “the greatest internal threat” to American security, but Assata herself had been thoroughly criminalized in the minds of the American public; she’d been charged in six different crimes ranging from attempted murder to bank robbery, and her acquittal or dismissal of the charges outright notwithstanding, to the average citizen, it seemed she must be guilty of something.”
And according to Mos Def, she was: “ She was guilty of calling for a shift in power in America, and for racial and economic justice. Included on a short list of the many people who have made that call and were either criminalized, terrorized, killed or blacklisted are Paul Robeson, Martin Luther King, Schwerner, Chaney and Goodman, Medgar Evers and Ida B. Wells.”
Not exactly a list of war criminals, is it?
However, there is one matter. As unfair as her trial was, Assata Shakur was indeed convicted of murder, and has escaped from prison. She is a refugee from “the king’s justice”.
There is, however, one simple solution to this matter. Assata Shakur and Donald Rumsfeld should both agree to lay it on the line. Each should submit to trial in the International Criminal Court. For Assata Shakur, this may be the opportunity that she and her supporters have awaited for decades – the only opportunity for a fair trial. For Rumsfeld, this may be the opportunity to finally gain either international approval for the U.S. actions in Iraq, or at least demonstrate that the United States will allow itself to be held accountable.This is what we call “killing two birds with one stone”.
It may also be the only way Assata Shakur will truly fly free.
Huh? Does that make any sense to you? Oh, wait.
“For one thing, this woman’s name is not Assata Shakur,” Rumsfeld continues (I knew I was missing something), “it’s Joanne Chesimard. And finally, the United States government has just offered one million—dollars, not t-shirts—to anyone who captures her. She’s a convicted cop killer, for christsake.”
We are speaking of course, about Assata Shakur, exiled African American activist, self-proclaimed “20th century escaped slave” and… terrorist(?).
One June 8, 2005, Assata Shakur made what some may or may not consider a generous bounty on the head of the U.S. Secretary of Defense: one million “HANDS OF ASSATA” T-shirts to anyone who can capture Rumsfeld and deliver him to the International Criminal Court to faces of war crimes related to the American invasion and occupation of Iraq. So, now, Rummy makes a lot more sense. Well, just a little.
There is no question that the topic of Assata Shakur is a fairly hot one right now. In in 1973, Shakur was convicted of the murder of New Jersey state patrolman Werner Forrester under circumstances that would probably make Rubin “Hurricane” Carter blush.
Of course, there is probably no one who can tell the tale better than Assata Shakur herself: “On May 2, 1973 I, along with Zayd Malik Shakur and Sundiata Acoli were stopped on the New Jersey Turnpike, supposedly for a "faulty tail light." Sundiata Acoli got out of the car to determine why we were stopped. Zayd and I remained in the car. State trooper Harper then came to the car, opened the door and began to question us. Because we were black, and riding in a car with Vermont license plates, he claimed he became "suspicious." He then drew his gun, pointed it at us, and told us to put our hands up in the air, in front of us, where he could see them. I complied and in a split second, there was a sound that came from outside the car, there was a sudden movement, and I was shot once with my arms held up in the air, and then once again from the back. Zayd Malik Shakur was later killed, trooper Werner Forester was killed, and even though trooper Harper admitted that he shot and killed Zayd Malik Shakur, under the New Jersey felony murder law, I was charged with killing both Zayd Malik Shakur, who was my closest friend and comrade, and charged in the death of trooper Forester.”
The trials that followed were wrought with issues. In 1973, for example, Assata’s trial in Middlesex county was stopped due to overwhelming racism – one juror was even heard to remark “if she’s black, she’s guilty.”
The kanagroo court case was beset by all sorts of extremists. The American National Socialist White Person’s party even protested outside the courthouse, urging people to “support white cops”. In 1977, Assata would finally be convicted by an all-white jury.
Assata would escape from prison in 1979, and flee to Cuba in 1981. The Cuban government of Fidel Castro (obviously recognizing a P.R. windfall when they see it – doing what may be the right thing for the wrong reasons) granted Shakur refuge, and the matter has been a source of political strife ever since.
In May, 2005, the United States Government raised the $150,000 bounty on Shakur to an even $1 million, and continues to petition Cuba to return the “terrorist” Assata Shakur (it should be noted that Shakur was reputed to be the “Bandit Queen” of the Black Panthers). However, this alone should not be enough to make Shakur guilty of murder. But she must be guilty… she was convicted, right?
Rapper Mos Def disagrees: “ There are those who believe that being convicted of a crime makes you guilty. But that imposes an assumption of infallibility upon our criminal justice system. When Assata Shakur was convicted of killing Werner Forester, not only had the Black Panther Party been labeled by then F.B.I. director, J. Edgar Hoover, as “the greatest internal threat” to American security, but Assata herself had been thoroughly criminalized in the minds of the American public; she’d been charged in six different crimes ranging from attempted murder to bank robbery, and her acquittal or dismissal of the charges outright notwithstanding, to the average citizen, it seemed she must be guilty of something.”
And according to Mos Def, she was: “ She was guilty of calling for a shift in power in America, and for racial and economic justice. Included on a short list of the many people who have made that call and were either criminalized, terrorized, killed or blacklisted are Paul Robeson, Martin Luther King, Schwerner, Chaney and Goodman, Medgar Evers and Ida B. Wells.”
Not exactly a list of war criminals, is it?
However, there is one matter. As unfair as her trial was, Assata Shakur was indeed convicted of murder, and has escaped from prison. She is a refugee from “the king’s justice”.
There is, however, one simple solution to this matter. Assata Shakur and Donald Rumsfeld should both agree to lay it on the line. Each should submit to trial in the International Criminal Court. For Assata Shakur, this may be the opportunity that she and her supporters have awaited for decades – the only opportunity for a fair trial. For Rumsfeld, this may be the opportunity to finally gain either international approval for the U.S. actions in Iraq, or at least demonstrate that the United States will allow itself to be held accountable.This is what we call “killing two birds with one stone”.
It may also be the only way Assata Shakur will truly fly free.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Sexism Strikes Again?
Or does it? Only the Liberals know for sure
This just in! Apparently, Belinda Stronach is a woman.
Go figure, I hadn’t noticed either.
But apparently, she is indeed a woman, and as such the Federal Liberal Women’s Caucus has stepped forward to declare that much of criticism of Stronach is sexist.
Wow. I never saw that coming. Not in a million years. Nope, no sir…
Anyway, following the reaction to Belinda Stronach crossing the floor to sit with the perennially crooked Federal Liberals, the Liberal Women’s Caucus has stepped forward to decry and bemoan the sexism allegedly being directed at the embattled MP.
Ontario Conservative Bob Runciman called Stronach (a woman considered by some to be among the most attractive Members of Parliament) “a dipstick – an attractive one – but a dipstick.”
Alberta Conservative MLA Tony Abbot declared that Stronach had “whored herself for power.” Unlike the CBC, CTV allowed Abbot to elaborate by also printing, “ Some people prostitute themselves for different costs or different prices. She sold out for a cabinet position."
Liberal MP Judy Sgro weighed in, saying, “"I think it's important that we try to raise the level of discourse and debate and they shouldn't be reduced to the kinds of throw-away comments that people are clearly using last night and this morning. So I would call on Mr. Harper to apologize to Ms. Stronach and to women of Canada, and ask his colleagues to very much do the same so that we can try and restore some level of respect and discussion here in Ottawa."
Because Stephen Harper is obviously responsible for the comments made by Alberta and Ontario MLAs. And the Liberal Women’s Caucus isn’t licking their lips at the concept of Harper tucking tail on their behalf. No, not at all.
Linda Trimble, professor of Political Science at the University of Alberta stepped into the debate, saying, "When she's being called a whore and a dipstick – well, that's intensely personal, and it goes to her integrity. Those are not the kinds of comments made when male politicians cross the floor."
So what of Stronach’s integrity? She was elected by her constituency as a Conservative, but there have been plenty of MPs cross the floor to sit with other parties, right?
Then again, when Liberal MP David Kilgour crossed the floor, he didn’t do so to sit as a critic, or even as a member of the Conservative party – he did so to sit as an independent. When Conservative MP Chuck Cadman crossed, he did likewise.
When John Bryden crossed to sit as an Independent, he would eventually sit as a Conservative… but not for eight days afterward.
Even the venerable Joe Clark crossed the floor once, to sit as an… independent. Does anyone else see a pattern here? Maybe one that Belinda Stronach doesn’t fit?
Even Deborah Gray (I would like to note, also a woman) once crossed the floor, to sit as an… independent. She, however, would eventually rejoin the Canadian Alliance. Likewise with Valerie Meredith.
Here in the Nexus, if there’s anything I do, it’s call a spade a spade. Frankly, it’s fairly obvious what these individuals are trying to do. They’re following one of the cardinal rules of politics: make it hurt to take you on.
By ideologizing the issue of Belinda Stronach’s betrayal, these individuals are out to make it impossible to criticize Stronach without being branded as sexist. This is similar to attempts made by the proponents of same-sex marriage to make it impossible to criticize moves to legalize same-sex marriage without being branded as homophobic, or make it impossible to not support affirmative action programs without being accused of racism. The list goes on and on, and it’s actually a fairly effective mudslinging tactic.
Because it’s becoming fairly obvious that it’s one thing for a woman to have “great shoes,” (words of Anne McLellan) but it’s entirely an obvious to question the integrity of an MP who has just stabbed her constituents in the back.
This just in! Apparently, Belinda Stronach is a woman.
Go figure, I hadn’t noticed either.
But apparently, she is indeed a woman, and as such the Federal Liberal Women’s Caucus has stepped forward to declare that much of criticism of Stronach is sexist.
Wow. I never saw that coming. Not in a million years. Nope, no sir…
Anyway, following the reaction to Belinda Stronach crossing the floor to sit with the perennially crooked Federal Liberals, the Liberal Women’s Caucus has stepped forward to decry and bemoan the sexism allegedly being directed at the embattled MP.
Ontario Conservative Bob Runciman called Stronach (a woman considered by some to be among the most attractive Members of Parliament) “a dipstick – an attractive one – but a dipstick.”
Alberta Conservative MLA Tony Abbot declared that Stronach had “whored herself for power.” Unlike the CBC, CTV allowed Abbot to elaborate by also printing, “ Some people prostitute themselves for different costs or different prices. She sold out for a cabinet position."
Liberal MP Judy Sgro weighed in, saying, “"I think it's important that we try to raise the level of discourse and debate and they shouldn't be reduced to the kinds of throw-away comments that people are clearly using last night and this morning. So I would call on Mr. Harper to apologize to Ms. Stronach and to women of Canada, and ask his colleagues to very much do the same so that we can try and restore some level of respect and discussion here in Ottawa."
Because Stephen Harper is obviously responsible for the comments made by Alberta and Ontario MLAs. And the Liberal Women’s Caucus isn’t licking their lips at the concept of Harper tucking tail on their behalf. No, not at all.
Linda Trimble, professor of Political Science at the University of Alberta stepped into the debate, saying, "When she's being called a whore and a dipstick – well, that's intensely personal, and it goes to her integrity. Those are not the kinds of comments made when male politicians cross the floor."
So what of Stronach’s integrity? She was elected by her constituency as a Conservative, but there have been plenty of MPs cross the floor to sit with other parties, right?
Then again, when Liberal MP David Kilgour crossed the floor, he didn’t do so to sit as a critic, or even as a member of the Conservative party – he did so to sit as an independent. When Conservative MP Chuck Cadman crossed, he did likewise.
When John Bryden crossed to sit as an Independent, he would eventually sit as a Conservative… but not for eight days afterward.
Even the venerable Joe Clark crossed the floor once, to sit as an… independent. Does anyone else see a pattern here? Maybe one that Belinda Stronach doesn’t fit?
Even Deborah Gray (I would like to note, also a woman) once crossed the floor, to sit as an… independent. She, however, would eventually rejoin the Canadian Alliance. Likewise with Valerie Meredith.
Here in the Nexus, if there’s anything I do, it’s call a spade a spade. Frankly, it’s fairly obvious what these individuals are trying to do. They’re following one of the cardinal rules of politics: make it hurt to take you on.
By ideologizing the issue of Belinda Stronach’s betrayal, these individuals are out to make it impossible to criticize Stronach without being branded as sexist. This is similar to attempts made by the proponents of same-sex marriage to make it impossible to criticize moves to legalize same-sex marriage without being branded as homophobic, or make it impossible to not support affirmative action programs without being accused of racism. The list goes on and on, and it’s actually a fairly effective mudslinging tactic.
Because it’s becoming fairly obvious that it’s one thing for a woman to have “great shoes,” (words of Anne McLellan) but it’s entirely an obvious to question the integrity of an MP who has just stabbed her constituents in the back.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Blonde Ambition Strikes Again!
Belinda Stronach Makes Blonde Jokes Fashionable Again
Politics is a game that is not unlike poker. For many, the goal is ultimately to deceive your fellow players while jockeying for the best hand you possibly can.
On May 17, 2005, Belinda Stronach played a winning hand – at least on paper – by crossing the floor to sit with the Liberal party. Her ultimate reward? A cabinet position as the minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.
Never mind the little detail that Stronach’s Newmarket-Aurora constituents elected her as a member of the Conservative party – a party for which she placed second in the 2004 leadership convention.
“ I cannot exaggerate how hard this is for me,” Stronach said at a press conference.
“ The country must come first.”
The country. Right.
“ I’ve been uncomfortable for some time with the direction the Conservative party was taking,” Stronach explained. “I regret to say that I do not believe the party leader is truly sensitive to the needs of each part of the country and just how big and complex Canada really is."
While she may have a very arguable point regarding the party’s stance on same-sex marriage, the runner-up to the party leadership crosses the floor and immediately begins criticizing Stephen Harper? Wow. Never saw that coming.
Harper had his own thoughts. “ There’s no grand principle involved in this decision, just ambition,” Harper said.
Ambition is something that Stronach is no stranger to. Considering she dropped out of the York University school of business in 1985, it might be considered curious that she would become a board member at Magna international, an automotive parts company. Then again, maybe not -- her father started the company.
In 1990 she married Magna executive Donald Walker. After five years and two children, she divorced him in 1995. Shortly after, she became a vice-president of the company. In 1999 she would replace Walker as executive vice-president of the company.
So, with a history like this, it’s supposed to be hard to believe she would actually hesitate to stab Stephen Harper in the back for the sake of advancing her career?
Right.
From Paul Martin’s end, this couldn’t have worked out any better. He makes Stronach responsible for implementing the recommendations of the Gomery inquiry and makes it look as if his party is actually prepared to act on the scandal. This was very much the PR gambit that the Liberal party desperately needs.
Furthermore, Stronach’s defection brings Martin to 133 seats in parliament. When combined with the NDP’s 19 seats, Martin has the capacity to control 152 seats – dead even with the Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois, increasing the importance of Parliament’s three independent sitters.
For Stronach, however, the future should not be so rosy. In crossing the floor to sit with the Liberals, Stronach has betrayed her constituents, her party and her country – all to benefit her own career by keeping a corrupt government in power.
Thankfully, sometimes actions speak louder than words, and Stronach’s actions have spoken pretty loud.
Politics is a game that is not unlike poker. For many, the goal is ultimately to deceive your fellow players while jockeying for the best hand you possibly can.
On May 17, 2005, Belinda Stronach played a winning hand – at least on paper – by crossing the floor to sit with the Liberal party. Her ultimate reward? A cabinet position as the minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.
Never mind the little detail that Stronach’s Newmarket-Aurora constituents elected her as a member of the Conservative party – a party for which she placed second in the 2004 leadership convention.
“ I cannot exaggerate how hard this is for me,” Stronach said at a press conference.
“ The country must come first.”
The country. Right.
“ I’ve been uncomfortable for some time with the direction the Conservative party was taking,” Stronach explained. “I regret to say that I do not believe the party leader is truly sensitive to the needs of each part of the country and just how big and complex Canada really is."
While she may have a very arguable point regarding the party’s stance on same-sex marriage, the runner-up to the party leadership crosses the floor and immediately begins criticizing Stephen Harper? Wow. Never saw that coming.
Harper had his own thoughts. “ There’s no grand principle involved in this decision, just ambition,” Harper said.
Ambition is something that Stronach is no stranger to. Considering she dropped out of the York University school of business in 1985, it might be considered curious that she would become a board member at Magna international, an automotive parts company. Then again, maybe not -- her father started the company.
In 1990 she married Magna executive Donald Walker. After five years and two children, she divorced him in 1995. Shortly after, she became a vice-president of the company. In 1999 she would replace Walker as executive vice-president of the company.
So, with a history like this, it’s supposed to be hard to believe she would actually hesitate to stab Stephen Harper in the back for the sake of advancing her career?
Right.
From Paul Martin’s end, this couldn’t have worked out any better. He makes Stronach responsible for implementing the recommendations of the Gomery inquiry and makes it look as if his party is actually prepared to act on the scandal. This was very much the PR gambit that the Liberal party desperately needs.
Furthermore, Stronach’s defection brings Martin to 133 seats in parliament. When combined with the NDP’s 19 seats, Martin has the capacity to control 152 seats – dead even with the Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois, increasing the importance of Parliament’s three independent sitters.
For Stronach, however, the future should not be so rosy. In crossing the floor to sit with the Liberals, Stronach has betrayed her constituents, her party and her country – all to benefit her own career by keeping a corrupt government in power.
Thankfully, sometimes actions speak louder than words, and Stronach’s actions have spoken pretty loud.
Monday, May 16, 2005
Threatening Freedom
Freedom of Speech is Under Attack, and Battles Have Already Been Won and Lost
“Some people ask if I feel like rappers have a responsibility to their listeners, and I have to say… no. Your only responsible is to make it as hot as it can be,” says Kanye West in the documentary Russel Simmons Presents: Hip Hop Justice.
Responsibility has been a very touchy subject in regards to music for decades. Perhaps the most high-profile argument in history regarding this subject has to be the Judas Priest subliminal suicide trial of 1985. In this case, it was argued that Judas Priest was legally responsible for the suicides of Raymond Belknap and James Vance (who, it should be mentioned would not die for an additional two years – but from the affects of the attempt).
It was argued that the song “Stained Glass” featured subliminal messages that urged the listener to “do it” without actually suggesting what. Regardless, it was determined that the sound was the result of two coincidentally occurring noises on the record – charges were dismissed against the band.
Ever since, however, this has been the battle over musical lyrics: those who claim that musicians have a responsibility to their listeners, and are to blame for the actions of those who imitate them, and those that claim the responsibility belongs not to the musicians, but to the listeners.
The debate certainly hasn’t ended with Judas Priest. If anything, it has expanded into additional forums. Violence has been joined by sexuality and family values as part of this debate. Some of the most inflammatory artists of the past ten years include Marilyn Manson, Eminem and Christina Aguilera. Historically, they join artists such as Judas Priest, the Dead Kennedys, Public Enemy and Body Count. Even country music trio the Dixie Chicks have felt the repercussions of their statements of political dissent – more notably, those not made through music.
The public has developed two main strategies for acting on their outrage regarding music: protest and legal action.
Eminem is no stranger to protest. Following the release of his 1999 album “The Marshall Mathers LP”, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) launched an ambitious campaign of protest against the rapper. “ The Marshal Mathers LP contains the most blatantly offensive, homophobic lyrics GLAAD has ever seen," said GLAAD Executive Director Joan M. Garry. GLAAD would follow Eminem from the MTV Music Video Awards to the Grammys, where Eminem would refute his critics by performing his hit song “Stan” with homosexual music legend Elton John.
Often, these protests are accompanied by well-orchestrated boycotts, as was also the case with Eminem. Perhaps the most famous boycott of all time was that of the Beatles after John Lennon’s assertation that the Beatles had become “bigger than Jesus”.
While there is something fundamentally democratic about protest campaigns, sometimes, the law steps into the fray and attempts to hold musicians responsible for their lyrics. Perhaps the most glaring example is the tale of Corey Miller, aka C-Murder.
The tale of C-Murder ultimately begins on January, 12, 2002, a night that will forever live in infamy within hip hop circles. On this evening, Miller attended a Louisiana Nightclub. Perhaps coincidentally, it was this same night that Steve Thomas, a 16 year-old who had snuck into the club, was shot dead.
Unfortunately for Miller, when a rapper goes out in public, they go out as their stage persona – whether they want to or not. Doubly unfortunate was the fact that this means they stand out.
With this (and, perhaps, his stage name) in mind, it may not be surprising that police would charge Miller with the murder, alleging that it stemmed from an argument that he allegedly had with the deceased. Miller was arrested, and held on $1 million bail. Perhaps even more damning for Miller was that he was at the time free on a $250,000 bond issued for an attempted murder charge. Miller also had a weapons-related offense on his record.
Upon going to trial, however, the persona of Miller virtually disappeared in the prosecution’s eyes, as they focused their efforts around Miller’s C-Murder persona. C-Murder would even appear on court documentation as an alias, and many of his violent lyrics would be entered in court as evidence.
While this practice alone is legally questionable, concerns would repeatedly be raised about the treatment of Miller’s rights – first and foremost his right to be considered guilty until proven innocent. In the years subsequent to his conviction, many dirty details about the case would be revealed, including police rejection of contradictory evidence: a witness that not only claimed that Miller had not been seen with a gun, but that another individual had been – and individual the witness was even able to identify.
In March, the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal ruled that Miller’s constitutional rights had not been violated, and upheld his conviction.
Among the more bizarre recent developments in Miller’s case is that his lawyer, Ron Rakosky, has been restricted from bringing pens to his meetings with his client – prison officials note that hollow pens could be used to smuggle song lyrics, which in this case are obviously being declared to be contraband.
Whatever the truth behind Miller’s case may ultimately be, the stance of law enforcement toward violence within the hip hop community is a little more ambiguous. In the case of the November 26, 2003 murder of New Orleans-based rapper Soulja Slim, for example, charges against prime suspect Garelle Smith (who, it is suspected accepted a $10,000 fee for Slim’s assassination) were suddenly dropped, citing insufficient evidence.
Third District Detective James Scott, however, had one further comment: “live hard, die hard, I guess.”
Ironically, Soulja Slim had collaborated with C-Murder, but this aside, one also remembers two other higher-profile cases with no arrests – the cases of 2Pac Shakur and Biggie Smalls. This may be a statement on the complicated nature of hip hop violence, or it may also be a statement on the treatment of these incidents by police officials. Either way, the argument is wrought with rhetoric and hearsay. Little solid evidence exists.
Regardless, an issue regarding freedom and responsibility continues to pervade the music industry.
Perhaps it is important to remember that speech is a powerful thing. Furthermore, as the great Stan Lee asserts, with great power comes great responsibility. There is no question that musicians have tremendous power. Many of our society’s greatest political minds have, indeed, been musicians, and some (such as the incomparable Bob Marley) have become so powerful that governments have taken the matters into their own hands.
It could be considered that Kanye West is wrong. With the power of speech (and the ideas that an individual can convey through them) must come great responsibility. It is only the nature of that responsibility that is up for debate.
Are musicians responsible for the actions of those who act on their ideas? Ultimately, the answer must be no. But it could be argued that musicians should accept responsibility for the ideas themselves. Regardless, when song lyrics can actually be considered evidence in a court of law, the United States has taken yet another step toward becoming a Police state – it is a direct assault upon freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech in its various forms must be defended. The very principles of democracy cannot exist without it.
“Some people ask if I feel like rappers have a responsibility to their listeners, and I have to say… no. Your only responsible is to make it as hot as it can be,” says Kanye West in the documentary Russel Simmons Presents: Hip Hop Justice.
Responsibility has been a very touchy subject in regards to music for decades. Perhaps the most high-profile argument in history regarding this subject has to be the Judas Priest subliminal suicide trial of 1985. In this case, it was argued that Judas Priest was legally responsible for the suicides of Raymond Belknap and James Vance (who, it should be mentioned would not die for an additional two years – but from the affects of the attempt).
It was argued that the song “Stained Glass” featured subliminal messages that urged the listener to “do it” without actually suggesting what. Regardless, it was determined that the sound was the result of two coincidentally occurring noises on the record – charges were dismissed against the band.
Ever since, however, this has been the battle over musical lyrics: those who claim that musicians have a responsibility to their listeners, and are to blame for the actions of those who imitate them, and those that claim the responsibility belongs not to the musicians, but to the listeners.
The debate certainly hasn’t ended with Judas Priest. If anything, it has expanded into additional forums. Violence has been joined by sexuality and family values as part of this debate. Some of the most inflammatory artists of the past ten years include Marilyn Manson, Eminem and Christina Aguilera. Historically, they join artists such as Judas Priest, the Dead Kennedys, Public Enemy and Body Count. Even country music trio the Dixie Chicks have felt the repercussions of their statements of political dissent – more notably, those not made through music.
The public has developed two main strategies for acting on their outrage regarding music: protest and legal action.
Eminem is no stranger to protest. Following the release of his 1999 album “The Marshall Mathers LP”, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) launched an ambitious campaign of protest against the rapper. “ The Marshal Mathers LP contains the most blatantly offensive, homophobic lyrics GLAAD has ever seen," said GLAAD Executive Director Joan M. Garry. GLAAD would follow Eminem from the MTV Music Video Awards to the Grammys, where Eminem would refute his critics by performing his hit song “Stan” with homosexual music legend Elton John.
Often, these protests are accompanied by well-orchestrated boycotts, as was also the case with Eminem. Perhaps the most famous boycott of all time was that of the Beatles after John Lennon’s assertation that the Beatles had become “bigger than Jesus”.
While there is something fundamentally democratic about protest campaigns, sometimes, the law steps into the fray and attempts to hold musicians responsible for their lyrics. Perhaps the most glaring example is the tale of Corey Miller, aka C-Murder.
The tale of C-Murder ultimately begins on January, 12, 2002, a night that will forever live in infamy within hip hop circles. On this evening, Miller attended a Louisiana Nightclub. Perhaps coincidentally, it was this same night that Steve Thomas, a 16 year-old who had snuck into the club, was shot dead.
Unfortunately for Miller, when a rapper goes out in public, they go out as their stage persona – whether they want to or not. Doubly unfortunate was the fact that this means they stand out.
With this (and, perhaps, his stage name) in mind, it may not be surprising that police would charge Miller with the murder, alleging that it stemmed from an argument that he allegedly had with the deceased. Miller was arrested, and held on $1 million bail. Perhaps even more damning for Miller was that he was at the time free on a $250,000 bond issued for an attempted murder charge. Miller also had a weapons-related offense on his record.
Upon going to trial, however, the persona of Miller virtually disappeared in the prosecution’s eyes, as they focused their efforts around Miller’s C-Murder persona. C-Murder would even appear on court documentation as an alias, and many of his violent lyrics would be entered in court as evidence.
While this practice alone is legally questionable, concerns would repeatedly be raised about the treatment of Miller’s rights – first and foremost his right to be considered guilty until proven innocent. In the years subsequent to his conviction, many dirty details about the case would be revealed, including police rejection of contradictory evidence: a witness that not only claimed that Miller had not been seen with a gun, but that another individual had been – and individual the witness was even able to identify.
In March, the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal ruled that Miller’s constitutional rights had not been violated, and upheld his conviction.
Among the more bizarre recent developments in Miller’s case is that his lawyer, Ron Rakosky, has been restricted from bringing pens to his meetings with his client – prison officials note that hollow pens could be used to smuggle song lyrics, which in this case are obviously being declared to be contraband.
Whatever the truth behind Miller’s case may ultimately be, the stance of law enforcement toward violence within the hip hop community is a little more ambiguous. In the case of the November 26, 2003 murder of New Orleans-based rapper Soulja Slim, for example, charges against prime suspect Garelle Smith (who, it is suspected accepted a $10,000 fee for Slim’s assassination) were suddenly dropped, citing insufficient evidence.
Third District Detective James Scott, however, had one further comment: “live hard, die hard, I guess.”
Ironically, Soulja Slim had collaborated with C-Murder, but this aside, one also remembers two other higher-profile cases with no arrests – the cases of 2Pac Shakur and Biggie Smalls. This may be a statement on the complicated nature of hip hop violence, or it may also be a statement on the treatment of these incidents by police officials. Either way, the argument is wrought with rhetoric and hearsay. Little solid evidence exists.
Regardless, an issue regarding freedom and responsibility continues to pervade the music industry.
Perhaps it is important to remember that speech is a powerful thing. Furthermore, as the great Stan Lee asserts, with great power comes great responsibility. There is no question that musicians have tremendous power. Many of our society’s greatest political minds have, indeed, been musicians, and some (such as the incomparable Bob Marley) have become so powerful that governments have taken the matters into their own hands.
It could be considered that Kanye West is wrong. With the power of speech (and the ideas that an individual can convey through them) must come great responsibility. It is only the nature of that responsibility that is up for debate.
Are musicians responsible for the actions of those who act on their ideas? Ultimately, the answer must be no. But it could be argued that musicians should accept responsibility for the ideas themselves. Regardless, when song lyrics can actually be considered evidence in a court of law, the United States has taken yet another step toward becoming a Police state – it is a direct assault upon freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech in its various forms must be defended. The very principles of democracy cannot exist without it.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Spyware Jihad
Why? Why not?
There used to be a time when the internet was actually useful.
Yes, believe it or not, my friends, there was once a time when you could use the internet to exchange messages with friends and accomplices (which they call, if you will, “e-mail”) and swap specialized information (which they call, if you will, “pornography”) all over a phone line hooked up between a bunch of computers.
And for a while, it was good. People even figured out how to use the internet to bitch about movies and slander each other anonymously. Then it all went horribly, horribly wrong.
Now, ever since a bunch of idiots got together and decided they could make a buck of this newfangled internet, it’s a jungle out there. It seems like you can’t even log on these days without having to fend off about a billion attempts to infect your computer with viral programs either specifically designed to steal information, or specifically designed to sell you shit. And that’s pretty much the long and short of it.
A recent scan of my dad’s computer, recently, turned up 40 FRICKIN’ INFECTIONS! 40 files, either accepted by the computer as cookies or forcibly inserted into the machine, which have proceeded to hide themselves and become a severe pain in the ass.
There are a few things that the purveyors of adware and spyware like to do. They range from the sinister (stealing personal information, passwords, and making long distance calls over the internet) to the annoying (like BroadcastPC, a program which routinely uploads ads to your Media Player that automatically play – a program that comes compete with an uninstall program that doesn’t work) to the extremely uncalled for (such as homepage hijackers).
But maybe the best way to make money of spyware is to create a program to deal with it. Furthermore, the people who have gotten into this racket have found some unique ways to market their product.
Take, for example, the about:blank buddy, software which they advertise as freeware (open source software), and then, as soon as you’ve scanned your machine, they attempt to sell you the software to eliminate the homepage hijacker file for a convenient $39.95 (which is actually fraud). Now, maybe I’m being a little paranoid, but doesn’t it seem like these people are profiting an awful lot from this one little bug? Hmmmm… I wonder if maybe they have something to do with it…
It seems like there’s a lot of money to be made off of spyware and adware. Type “spyware” into a google search and you will find literally thousands of these programs, most of which you can have at a price.
It seems to me that as long as there are people unscrupulous enough to create adware and spyware, there will be people unscrupulous enough to create adware and spyware just so they can sell you the program to debug it. It’s called “creating the problem”, and it’s a marketing practice that dates back to the ‘20s. This is actually a fairly novel approach to this age-old technique.
I’ve actually come up with a solution of my own to the spyware phenomenon. Someone – wink, wink – with the necessary expertise ought to design a program that, when connected to your web browser as a plug-in, responds to any attempts to install spyware or adware on your machine by transmitting a short-life virus to the source. One that is has such a short life and is so devastating that it will completely thrash the bastard’s computer.
Imagine the glee these people will experience when they restart their systems, go to all the trouble of fixing all the damage the virus has caused, only to be nailed with another – because, of course, they attempted another spyware upload! Poetic justice, if you ask me.
Or maybe, something really bad – wink, wink, nudge, nudge – should be done to the people responsible for these programs. Personally, I’d be satisfied with that.
There used to be a time when the internet was actually useful.
Yes, believe it or not, my friends, there was once a time when you could use the internet to exchange messages with friends and accomplices (which they call, if you will, “e-mail”) and swap specialized information (which they call, if you will, “pornography”) all over a phone line hooked up between a bunch of computers.
And for a while, it was good. People even figured out how to use the internet to bitch about movies and slander each other anonymously. Then it all went horribly, horribly wrong.
Now, ever since a bunch of idiots got together and decided they could make a buck of this newfangled internet, it’s a jungle out there. It seems like you can’t even log on these days without having to fend off about a billion attempts to infect your computer with viral programs either specifically designed to steal information, or specifically designed to sell you shit. And that’s pretty much the long and short of it.
A recent scan of my dad’s computer, recently, turned up 40 FRICKIN’ INFECTIONS! 40 files, either accepted by the computer as cookies or forcibly inserted into the machine, which have proceeded to hide themselves and become a severe pain in the ass.
There are a few things that the purveyors of adware and spyware like to do. They range from the sinister (stealing personal information, passwords, and making long distance calls over the internet) to the annoying (like BroadcastPC, a program which routinely uploads ads to your Media Player that automatically play – a program that comes compete with an uninstall program that doesn’t work) to the extremely uncalled for (such as homepage hijackers).
But maybe the best way to make money of spyware is to create a program to deal with it. Furthermore, the people who have gotten into this racket have found some unique ways to market their product.
Take, for example, the about:blank buddy, software which they advertise as freeware (open source software), and then, as soon as you’ve scanned your machine, they attempt to sell you the software to eliminate the homepage hijacker file for a convenient $39.95 (which is actually fraud). Now, maybe I’m being a little paranoid, but doesn’t it seem like these people are profiting an awful lot from this one little bug? Hmmmm… I wonder if maybe they have something to do with it…
It seems like there’s a lot of money to be made off of spyware and adware. Type “spyware” into a google search and you will find literally thousands of these programs, most of which you can have at a price.
It seems to me that as long as there are people unscrupulous enough to create adware and spyware, there will be people unscrupulous enough to create adware and spyware just so they can sell you the program to debug it. It’s called “creating the problem”, and it’s a marketing practice that dates back to the ‘20s. This is actually a fairly novel approach to this age-old technique.
I’ve actually come up with a solution of my own to the spyware phenomenon. Someone – wink, wink – with the necessary expertise ought to design a program that, when connected to your web browser as a plug-in, responds to any attempts to install spyware or adware on your machine by transmitting a short-life virus to the source. One that is has such a short life and is so devastating that it will completely thrash the bastard’s computer.
Imagine the glee these people will experience when they restart their systems, go to all the trouble of fixing all the damage the virus has caused, only to be nailed with another – because, of course, they attempted another spyware upload! Poetic justice, if you ask me.
Or maybe, something really bad – wink, wink, nudge, nudge – should be done to the people responsible for these programs. Personally, I’d be satisfied with that.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
So, You're Too Punk For Me?
Good For You. Now Fuck Off.
So, what is punk? Nobody seems to have a clear answer.
Punk, musically, according to a web search is defined as “a rock form characterized by aggressive volume, short, angry vocals and often bitter political or hopeless emotional content.”
Recently, with the popularity of bands like Not By Choice, and (everyone’s favorite whipping boy) Good Charlotte, the great debate over what is and is not punk has intensified. Despite playing music that sounds an awful lot like punk, so-called punks scream to high heaven that this music is not punk, essentially because only they should be allowed to define what is and is not punk.
They claim this music is not punk because it’s corporate, and it’s not political enough for their tastes. Behind all of this lies the very nature of the punk subculture itself.
So, then, in a cultural sense, what is punk? According to various sources, punk is: anti-establishment, activist, satirical and “underground’. If you aren’t all of these things enough to satisfy the political/social vanity of a punk, then you aren’t punk enough. Many of these people decry education as a tool of the establishment, or as a conspiracy to keep those who are either already downtrodden (or merely consider themselves downtrodden) down.
The message is crystal clear. Apparently, your elitism is better than my elitism. Which makes it all the more amusing that many of these people decry elitism as a symbol of hegemony, even as they seek to create their own hegemonies within their own little movements.
Take, for example, an anarchist friend of mine. Recently, he rather proudly told me a story about how he and a friend of his attended a local punk concert, only, to their chagrin find that it wasn’t punk enough for them.
To his partial credit, he may have an arguable case. He went to this show, held at the local Elk’s Hall, to find that it was full of junior high school kids and soccer moms selling sodas and nickel candies while pop-punk bands played preppy music and the entire show was a huge love-in.
How did he react to this? Well, how does on react to this?
He could have decided that this wasn’t for him, and left like a reasonably intelligent person would. But he didn’t do this. Instead, he (a man in his 20s) did everything that he could to spoil the fun that a bunch of junior high school kids were having. They smoked (which, apparently was against the rules at this particular show), they screamed obsenities (even after being politely asked not to) generally acted like jerks.
But it doesn’t end there.
He proudly tells me that a number of the kids from this show see him in the local shopping mall, and approach him. He tells them to fuck off. After seeing them outside the local fair the following summer, he reciprocates an attempt at friendly conversation by spitting in a guy’s face.
That’s a class act.
One of the alleged tenets of collective anarchism (to which my friend subscribes) is that it’s a society-wide transformation in which everyone unites in order to assure everyone can have a better quality of life. But if you’re telling someone to fuck off because his mom drives an SUV and he listens to Metallica and Good Charlotte, while all the while proclaiming that everyone needs to get along and be friends, than you just happen to a hypocrite. You also just happen to be an asshole.
Of course, not all anarchists are hopeless assholes. Take, for example, Otto Nomus who, in his essay “Race, Anarchy and Punk Rock”, writes: “ As a person of color and an anarchist with roots in punk rock, I have become deeply concerned with the lack of diversity within the anarchist movement. As long as we fail to attract significantly diverse participation, thus remaining isolated and politically weakened, and fail to link-up with and support anti-racist struggles, we shouldn’t keep our hopes up for any radical social transformation.”
Judging from the title of his essay, one may think that Nomus is primarily concerned about issues of racial diversity within the anarchist movement. However, he also wisely connects this with issues of social diversity.
My anarchist friend tells me “ we need to be able to exclude people,” and rationalizes this by explaining how, whenever anarchists have trusted Marx/Leninists, they are fatally betrayed afterward. However, I would ask: if Anarchy is supposed to be a broad-scale transformation of society, how do you expect to exclude anyone and still create a cohesive society? Here, however, is what we should ask:
Exactly how is this not fascism?
George W. Bush, I’d like to note, is a popular target of some of these individuals. He is said to be a fascist, a new Hitler. And while many of them (and many of us) can name many of the horrible things that Bush has done, many of them can name not one single argument in favor of the embattled cocksocker (oops, I mean president). There’s a very good reason for this: many of these people criticize others for never having read anything arguing in favor of anarchism, but they themselves have never read anything that argues against it, or disagrees with their viewpoints.
The result is a horde of cookie-cutter activists, bawling as loudly as they possibly can about how evil corporations are, but can’t actually explain to you what a corporation is. They’re fashionista activists, screaming that the sky is falling because it seems like it’s the ‘in’ thing to do.
As a result, they continually isolate and work against themselves to the point where they are entirely ineffectual. Normus recognizes this, writing, “ No matter how well-intentioned, the anarchist scene has been for the most part so deeply entrenched in the lifestyle of the know-it-all, punker-than-thou, vegan/straight edge-fascist, fashion victims or young, transient, train-hopping, dreadlocked, dumpster-diving eco-warriors that not only do most people find it hard to relate to them but they themselves are at a loss when they actually try to reach out to other communities.”
Of course, the punk and anarchist movement has a lot to offer. Social consciousness (when legitimate, and not just derived from listening to hours of Jell-O Biafra droning on and on while pretending he has a shred of credibility) is always a good thing.
But nobody likes to listen to an asshole, and there are more than a few anarchist punks out there who shouldn’t be so surprised when they’re told to fuck off.
Saturday, April 23, 2005
The Son of Frankenstein: The Merging of the Right and Left
It's Like Al Fraken and Ann Coulter Having a Baby Together, Only Far Less Creepy
Is it just me, or are the far left and far right starting to seem very similar these days?
Don't follow me? Here's an example -- one which relates to the subjects to which I am frequently addressing these days.
Many members of the right wing fall into the racist far right, much of which is anti-Semitic. These groups claim that (if they will even admit that it actually occured) Jews had the Holocaust coming to them -- they claim it is a preventative measure meant to stop Jews from establishing a dominant and arguably repressive global order.
Now tell me what you think of these statements (paraphrased, of course): "The Holocaust was partially justified because Jews were keeping their wealth within their own families and communities. If Jews had shared their wealth and power with others, the Holocaust wouldn't have happened because they wouldn't have been a convenient scapegoat."
Who made these statements? If you answered that it was a neo-Nazi or a member of the Aryan Nation, you'd be wrong. This came from a local home-grown ultra-leftie... the kind of person one might call a "peace fag" if one was completely retarded.
What, you may ask, am I trying to infer by drawing this comparison? I shall answer you, but only because you asked so nicely... well, that, and I just stole your wallet and I kind of feel guilty about it. Although I must admit that I was rather disappointed by the lack of cash and credit cards. Really, you are one impoverished bastard, and I would ask that if you are going to make stealing from you so goddamned tempting, you could at least make it more profitable. I mean, FUCK!
Uh, where was I?
...Right. I am going to write briefly on the subject of "principle". Because it seems that organizing certain initiatives on "principle" these days is a common theme between the radical left and radical right, and unfortunately, these propositions fly in the face of a little thing called "logic". Let me take you through it.
Some radical righties suggest that anyone caught selling any amount of dope (be it pot, coke, or progressive metal) be sentenced to death. No appeals, no nothing. Guilty. Bang. Done. See ya in the next life.
Some radical lefties suggest that all combustion vehicles be outlawed because they pollute the environment. Motherfuckers need to walk more any way.
Never mind that a better way of dealing with the drug problem is to attack the supply lines and distribution networks rather than arresting petty dealers, or that cars trucks and fugly SUVs could be designed to be much more environmentally friendly (possibly electrically powered, or perhaps even driven by cheaply-acquired Chinese immigrants on treadmills). Nope. Outlaw cars and make petty dealers deceased. Problem solved, right?
Of course, fuck no.
One would have to wonder about how people will get around (given that a eutopian bus society is a nice idea, but a nightmare in conceptualization) without any semblence of personal transportation, or why drugs will continue to be bought and sold even as record numbers of blacks and hispanics are executed... many of which will be convicted solely due to racial profiling.
Nope. Each believes we must do these things, because it's the principle that counts. This is a similar approach taken to some of the blatant bias in the media right now. Many so-called pundits have concocted their arguments around a calculated core of lies, and justify this with "principles". It doesn't matter than I'm attempting to influence people's attitudes and opinions with lies, because I'm lying for my principles.
Can you say "give me a fucking break?" Because I can!
I find it remarkable how much far lefties and far righties hate each other, considering that they believe in essentially the same thing: a ruthless reconceptualization of society based entirely upon their own whims and beliefs, regardless of the consequences, and in complete ignorance of any other possible solutions.
The role of information is even being challenged. While many far lefties claim that the media and history books are blatantly biased and designed to suit the political needs of the far right -- a task which was undertaken, of course, by a right-wing conspiracy designed to obscure the truth -- many far righties are claiming that the media and history books are blatantly biased and designed to suit the political needs of the far left -- a task which was undertaken, of course, by a left-wing conspiracy designed to obscure the truth.
Is it just me, or are these idiots essentially saying the same fucking thing? By jove, they are!
Of course, conspiracy theorizing is much easier than actual theorizing, especially when you've taken all the steps you possibly can to shield yourself from any information or ideas that might lead you to reconsider your beliefs. Furthermore, conspiracy theorizing requires a lot less effort: everything is a conspiracy, and fascist pigfuckers are running the world. Whew. I just summed up all the world's problems in time for lunch. Let's eat.
Of course, what we really need to do is force feed some these fascist pigfuckers their own bullshit and make them swallow it before they mindlessly spawn the next generation of mindless fascist pigfuckers.
Is it just me, or are the far left and far right starting to seem very similar these days?
Don't follow me? Here's an example -- one which relates to the subjects to which I am frequently addressing these days.
Many members of the right wing fall into the racist far right, much of which is anti-Semitic. These groups claim that (if they will even admit that it actually occured) Jews had the Holocaust coming to them -- they claim it is a preventative measure meant to stop Jews from establishing a dominant and arguably repressive global order.
Now tell me what you think of these statements (paraphrased, of course): "The Holocaust was partially justified because Jews were keeping their wealth within their own families and communities. If Jews had shared their wealth and power with others, the Holocaust wouldn't have happened because they wouldn't have been a convenient scapegoat."
Who made these statements? If you answered that it was a neo-Nazi or a member of the Aryan Nation, you'd be wrong. This came from a local home-grown ultra-leftie... the kind of person one might call a "peace fag" if one was completely retarded.
What, you may ask, am I trying to infer by drawing this comparison? I shall answer you, but only because you asked so nicely... well, that, and I just stole your wallet and I kind of feel guilty about it. Although I must admit that I was rather disappointed by the lack of cash and credit cards. Really, you are one impoverished bastard, and I would ask that if you are going to make stealing from you so goddamned tempting, you could at least make it more profitable. I mean, FUCK!
Uh, where was I?
...Right. I am going to write briefly on the subject of "principle". Because it seems that organizing certain initiatives on "principle" these days is a common theme between the radical left and radical right, and unfortunately, these propositions fly in the face of a little thing called "logic". Let me take you through it.
Some radical righties suggest that anyone caught selling any amount of dope (be it pot, coke, or progressive metal) be sentenced to death. No appeals, no nothing. Guilty. Bang. Done. See ya in the next life.
Some radical lefties suggest that all combustion vehicles be outlawed because they pollute the environment. Motherfuckers need to walk more any way.
Never mind that a better way of dealing with the drug problem is to attack the supply lines and distribution networks rather than arresting petty dealers, or that cars trucks and fugly SUVs could be designed to be much more environmentally friendly (possibly electrically powered, or perhaps even driven by cheaply-acquired Chinese immigrants on treadmills). Nope. Outlaw cars and make petty dealers deceased. Problem solved, right?
Of course, fuck no.
One would have to wonder about how people will get around (given that a eutopian bus society is a nice idea, but a nightmare in conceptualization) without any semblence of personal transportation, or why drugs will continue to be bought and sold even as record numbers of blacks and hispanics are executed... many of which will be convicted solely due to racial profiling.
Nope. Each believes we must do these things, because it's the principle that counts. This is a similar approach taken to some of the blatant bias in the media right now. Many so-called pundits have concocted their arguments around a calculated core of lies, and justify this with "principles". It doesn't matter than I'm attempting to influence people's attitudes and opinions with lies, because I'm lying for my principles.
Can you say "give me a fucking break?" Because I can!
I find it remarkable how much far lefties and far righties hate each other, considering that they believe in essentially the same thing: a ruthless reconceptualization of society based entirely upon their own whims and beliefs, regardless of the consequences, and in complete ignorance of any other possible solutions.
The role of information is even being challenged. While many far lefties claim that the media and history books are blatantly biased and designed to suit the political needs of the far right -- a task which was undertaken, of course, by a right-wing conspiracy designed to obscure the truth -- many far righties are claiming that the media and history books are blatantly biased and designed to suit the political needs of the far left -- a task which was undertaken, of course, by a left-wing conspiracy designed to obscure the truth.
Is it just me, or are these idiots essentially saying the same fucking thing? By jove, they are!
Of course, conspiracy theorizing is much easier than actual theorizing, especially when you've taken all the steps you possibly can to shield yourself from any information or ideas that might lead you to reconsider your beliefs. Furthermore, conspiracy theorizing requires a lot less effort: everything is a conspiracy, and fascist pigfuckers are running the world. Whew. I just summed up all the world's problems in time for lunch. Let's eat.
Of course, what we really need to do is force feed some these fascist pigfuckers their own bullshit and make them swallow it before they mindlessly spawn the next generation of mindless fascist pigfuckers.
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Freedom of Speech vs. Holocaust Denial
Freedom of Speech Doesn't Excuse Ignorance of Speech
Recently, I wrote an article for The Gateway about the Canadian government's expulsion of Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel. Zundel -- who had previously been convicted for hate speech and spreading false teachings about the Holocaust -- had been held for two years under the CSIS security certificate program.
Although a number of people consider this to be an unjust act and a contravention of Zundel's rights, I still vehemently argue that few -- if any -- of Zundel's rights were violated. Those few violations of his rights were, in my view, entirely acceptable due to Zundel's activities in support of and complicity with violent neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups. These groups are domestic terrorist cells, and must be treated the same as any Al Qaida cell.
One of the rights that some have argued that have been violated is Zundel's right to freedom of speech. They are wrong.
Some argue that due to freedom of speech sometimes we have to listen to things that we don't want to hear, on account of those saying them have the right to say it. Often, this is true.
However, in Canada, we have a number of laws that (under the authority of the Notwithstanding clause of the consitution) place certain limits on freedom of speech within Canada. These are reasonable limits. These laws cover topics such as libel, slander, and that most magical of speech crimes... hate speech. These laws extend necessary protections to both individuals and society as a whole. These laws protect us from having our characters defamed, or racial hatred encouraged against ethnic groups.
Recently, this article has become a topic of discussion on www.majorityrights.com, which, since examining the site's content a little closer, is obviously a bastion for far/Christian/racist rightists, which has spurned me to address the issue of Holocaust denial.
History has many dark chapters, of which the Holocaust is only one. Apartheid in South Africa is a fairly dark chapter, as is the more recent events in the Sudan. Tienanmen Square is a fairly nasty bit of historical business, as is 9/11. What do all of these events have in common? These are events of enormous atrocity commited in the spirit of evil.
Pascal wrote "Evil is infinite, and has many forms". Forgetting the memories of past evil is all that is necessary for evil to rise again.
Which brings us specifically to the subject of Holocaust denial. I am now reminded of the tale of Red Deer College professor Jim Keegstra, who eventually lost his job because he assigned a Holocaust denial book for reading, and (allegedly) taught hatred of Jews in his history class.
Holocaust denial represents not only a challenge to the ideals under which freedom of speech were established, but also a challenge to history. The Holocaust occurred. This is a fact, and the protest of even a billion neo-Nazis could never change this.
Yet, there is a portion of society that wants to erase the chapter of the Holocaust from the history books. Many of these people also want to destroy what they decry as "the Jewish base of power" from which they control the "Zionist Occupied Government". Their goal, according to these people, is to (in the name of Satan, of course) destroy the white race. Which is actually pretty funny, because a significant portion of Jews have white skin. Which only demonstrates something I have suspected about this people for years: they are a bunch of retarded fucknuts.
Regardless, paranoid/hateful/ludicrous beliefs aside, there is a reason why these people want to erase the Holocaust from the history books: so they can fucking do it again.
Sadly, freedom of speech has given these people a weapon by which they can fight their cause. The founding fathers of the United States who wrote the American constitution which was instrumental in establishing freedom of speech as a worldwide principle of just democratic governance probably never saw this coming. It is a challenge to the ideal of freedom of speech in that it allows those who lack the ability, desire, or will to use their freedom of speech responsibly to harm others.
Freedom of speech, as with all freedoms, is a power. And, as the great Stan Lee wrote: "with great power comes great responsiblity". Those, such as Ernnst Zundel or Jim Keegstra, who are unable to use their freedom of speech responsibly, must always be held accountable for what they say. And when they violate the sanctity of speech by using it to spew hatred, they must be punished.
This has been done. Jim Keegstra has justly faced the end of his teaching career. Ernst Zundel faces the next five years in a German prison, and he will likely serve that time. However, this is only part of this battle.
The punishment of those who use speech to promote the hatred of anyone, anywhere, must continue. We must not allow those who would do this to use freedom of speech as a shield behind which they can hide their acts of cowardice.
Call me a Zionist conspirator if you will. If fighting to preserve the memory of what may be history's single greatest injustice is collusion, then I am proudly a conspirator.
Recently, I wrote an article for The Gateway about the Canadian government's expulsion of Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel. Zundel -- who had previously been convicted for hate speech and spreading false teachings about the Holocaust -- had been held for two years under the CSIS security certificate program.
Although a number of people consider this to be an unjust act and a contravention of Zundel's rights, I still vehemently argue that few -- if any -- of Zundel's rights were violated. Those few violations of his rights were, in my view, entirely acceptable due to Zundel's activities in support of and complicity with violent neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups. These groups are domestic terrorist cells, and must be treated the same as any Al Qaida cell.
One of the rights that some have argued that have been violated is Zundel's right to freedom of speech. They are wrong.
Some argue that due to freedom of speech sometimes we have to listen to things that we don't want to hear, on account of those saying them have the right to say it. Often, this is true.
However, in Canada, we have a number of laws that (under the authority of the Notwithstanding clause of the consitution) place certain limits on freedom of speech within Canada. These are reasonable limits. These laws cover topics such as libel, slander, and that most magical of speech crimes... hate speech. These laws extend necessary protections to both individuals and society as a whole. These laws protect us from having our characters defamed, or racial hatred encouraged against ethnic groups.
Recently, this article has become a topic of discussion on www.majorityrights.com, which, since examining the site's content a little closer, is obviously a bastion for far/Christian/racist rightists, which has spurned me to address the issue of Holocaust denial.
History has many dark chapters, of which the Holocaust is only one. Apartheid in South Africa is a fairly dark chapter, as is the more recent events in the Sudan. Tienanmen Square is a fairly nasty bit of historical business, as is 9/11. What do all of these events have in common? These are events of enormous atrocity commited in the spirit of evil.
Pascal wrote "Evil is infinite, and has many forms". Forgetting the memories of past evil is all that is necessary for evil to rise again.
Which brings us specifically to the subject of Holocaust denial. I am now reminded of the tale of Red Deer College professor Jim Keegstra, who eventually lost his job because he assigned a Holocaust denial book for reading, and (allegedly) taught hatred of Jews in his history class.
Holocaust denial represents not only a challenge to the ideals under which freedom of speech were established, but also a challenge to history. The Holocaust occurred. This is a fact, and the protest of even a billion neo-Nazis could never change this.
Yet, there is a portion of society that wants to erase the chapter of the Holocaust from the history books. Many of these people also want to destroy what they decry as "the Jewish base of power" from which they control the "Zionist Occupied Government". Their goal, according to these people, is to (in the name of Satan, of course) destroy the white race. Which is actually pretty funny, because a significant portion of Jews have white skin. Which only demonstrates something I have suspected about this people for years: they are a bunch of retarded fucknuts.
Regardless, paranoid/hateful/ludicrous beliefs aside, there is a reason why these people want to erase the Holocaust from the history books: so they can fucking do it again.
Sadly, freedom of speech has given these people a weapon by which they can fight their cause. The founding fathers of the United States who wrote the American constitution which was instrumental in establishing freedom of speech as a worldwide principle of just democratic governance probably never saw this coming. It is a challenge to the ideal of freedom of speech in that it allows those who lack the ability, desire, or will to use their freedom of speech responsibly to harm others.
Freedom of speech, as with all freedoms, is a power. And, as the great Stan Lee wrote: "with great power comes great responsiblity". Those, such as Ernnst Zundel or Jim Keegstra, who are unable to use their freedom of speech responsibly, must always be held accountable for what they say. And when they violate the sanctity of speech by using it to spew hatred, they must be punished.
This has been done. Jim Keegstra has justly faced the end of his teaching career. Ernst Zundel faces the next five years in a German prison, and he will likely serve that time. However, this is only part of this battle.
The punishment of those who use speech to promote the hatred of anyone, anywhere, must continue. We must not allow those who would do this to use freedom of speech as a shield behind which they can hide their acts of cowardice.
Call me a Zionist conspirator if you will. If fighting to preserve the memory of what may be history's single greatest injustice is collusion, then I am proudly a conspirator.
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
100 Huntley Street's Road to Hell
I'm too lazy to come up with a funny title today
Well, friends, it's been a while since I've written here, having been fairly busy for the last month or so. But here I am again, and I'm going to write about a subject that has actually become fairly dear to me.
I've been paying a lot of attention to 100 Huntley Street lately. Not because I would by any means consider myself a devoted viewer of this depraved little program, but rather because it happens to come on right about the time that I usually leave for class. Lately, the big issue on 100 Huntley Street has been, yep, you guessed it: Gay Marriage.
I have to admit that I am actually quite disturbed the recent content of this program. It seems an uncontrollable tidal wave of religious fundamentalism is threatening to sweep forth across the nation, and this program is right on the crest of it. This wave threatens to ruthlessly crush such evil and impious things such as "ration" and "tolerance" and it's very frightening to me.
The entire 100 Huntley Street platform regarding gay marriage revolves around two things: one is a Compass poll that allegedly demonstrates that a full two thirds of the Canadian population is opposed to gay marriage, and the other is a Bible tract: "If the foundation is destroyed, what can the righteous do?".
While that Bible tract could mean almost anything, these people have pushed a half-truth upon the Canadian public regarding the Compass poll. While indeed only one third of Canadians surveyed in said poll were flat out in favor of gay marriage, only one third was opposed to it. The other third was in favor of "civil unions" for gays and lesbians, which is basically a secular marriage. More or less the same fucking thing, except granted by the state and not the church. So, of course, the churches are getting bitchy on the subject.
Regilious zealots such as David Mainse of the Crossroads foundation want to continually drive home their theory: gay marriage will destroy marriage, which is the foundation of our society.
But when men such as Mainse and Stockwell Day (a man who I supported to become leader of the Canadian Alliance Party until I personally found out what a pig-headed dumbfuck he is) speak of "our" society, whose society is it of which they speak. Whose society is "our" society?
The continual use of such a possessive term is a little bit frightening. If our society refers to a society belonging to men such as Mainse or Day, then one would have to imagine it is a society within which homosexuals are not welcome. If "our society" refers to a society belonging to other groups that are fond of this term, than one would have to imagine it as a society within which not only homosexuals are not welcome, but also jews, blacks and other ethnic minorities.
Many refer to the battle over gay marriage as the "culture wars". Now, I may be alone in this, but doesn't it seem like this isn't a hell of a lot different from the "holy racial wars"? Same shit, same pile, it just happens to be a different color... like you see after spending St. Patrick's Day drinking green beer.
Which is why it is so disturbing to see 100 Huntley Street preaching this kind of garbage. Now, 100 Huntley Street claims to be a Christian telecast. Conversely, I also consider myself to be Christian. However, the message that 100 Huntley Street preaches (which smiles on their faces that make them look so sweet that they could make you go into a diabetic coma) is entirely contrary to my religious values. For a Christian program to suggest (and often outright state) that discrimination against Gays is acceptable because they aren't referred to in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an abomination that Christians should not tolerate.
And yet so many do. And why? Because they possess a certain amount of authority. However, this is a matter for a different rant. Let's get back to business.
Many of these people would also not consider prostitutes or those who choose to indulge in vice (wine, women and song) to be a part of their society. Yet, where did Jesus spend all of his time? Did he hobnob with the CEO of Halliburton or Enron? Fuck no! He was right down there in the gutter with the drunks, lepers and whores, ministering to the people that needed them most.
And, let's face it: who needs most to be not discriminated against in the world? You guessed it: homosexuals. Jesus would be in favor of same-sex marriage, or at the very least civil unions. But try to convince people like bishop Fredrick Henry of this. They have answers for everything. Well, not really answers: half-answers. But, apparently, half-answers (much like half-truths) are supposed to be good enough.
Bishop Henry recently noted that not only did Jesus teach about unconditional love, he also taught about uncompromising truth. In other words, Jesus loves you, but since it still matters what you do, he does love you less if you're gay. Sinner.
And of course, the same telecast that decries the biased and unfair journalistic coverage of the comments of men such as bishop Henry also tries its hand at journalistic coverage of the gay marriage issue... which is unquestionably biased and partisan to their side of the issue. Hypocrites.
Furthermore, describing a man who denies that discrimination against homosexuals as a great humanitarian is equally as ridiculous as pretending that Stockwell Day (who tends to provide half-answers on important issues and full-answers on more or less irrelevant issues) still possesses any relevance in Canadian politics.
One look into the eyes of these people reveals that they are afraid. And if they could admit that, I could respect that. But using religion as a shield behind which they can hide that fear is a farce.
An utter, utter farce.
Well, friends, it's been a while since I've written here, having been fairly busy for the last month or so. But here I am again, and I'm going to write about a subject that has actually become fairly dear to me.
I've been paying a lot of attention to 100 Huntley Street lately. Not because I would by any means consider myself a devoted viewer of this depraved little program, but rather because it happens to come on right about the time that I usually leave for class. Lately, the big issue on 100 Huntley Street has been, yep, you guessed it: Gay Marriage.
I have to admit that I am actually quite disturbed the recent content of this program. It seems an uncontrollable tidal wave of religious fundamentalism is threatening to sweep forth across the nation, and this program is right on the crest of it. This wave threatens to ruthlessly crush such evil and impious things such as "ration" and "tolerance" and it's very frightening to me.
The entire 100 Huntley Street platform regarding gay marriage revolves around two things: one is a Compass poll that allegedly demonstrates that a full two thirds of the Canadian population is opposed to gay marriage, and the other is a Bible tract: "If the foundation is destroyed, what can the righteous do?".
While that Bible tract could mean almost anything, these people have pushed a half-truth upon the Canadian public regarding the Compass poll. While indeed only one third of Canadians surveyed in said poll were flat out in favor of gay marriage, only one third was opposed to it. The other third was in favor of "civil unions" for gays and lesbians, which is basically a secular marriage. More or less the same fucking thing, except granted by the state and not the church. So, of course, the churches are getting bitchy on the subject.
Regilious zealots such as David Mainse of the Crossroads foundation want to continually drive home their theory: gay marriage will destroy marriage, which is the foundation of our society.
But when men such as Mainse and Stockwell Day (a man who I supported to become leader of the Canadian Alliance Party until I personally found out what a pig-headed dumbfuck he is) speak of "our" society, whose society is it of which they speak. Whose society is "our" society?
The continual use of such a possessive term is a little bit frightening. If our society refers to a society belonging to men such as Mainse or Day, then one would have to imagine it is a society within which homosexuals are not welcome. If "our society" refers to a society belonging to other groups that are fond of this term, than one would have to imagine it as a society within which not only homosexuals are not welcome, but also jews, blacks and other ethnic minorities.
Many refer to the battle over gay marriage as the "culture wars". Now, I may be alone in this, but doesn't it seem like this isn't a hell of a lot different from the "holy racial wars"? Same shit, same pile, it just happens to be a different color... like you see after spending St. Patrick's Day drinking green beer.
Which is why it is so disturbing to see 100 Huntley Street preaching this kind of garbage. Now, 100 Huntley Street claims to be a Christian telecast. Conversely, I also consider myself to be Christian. However, the message that 100 Huntley Street preaches (which smiles on their faces that make them look so sweet that they could make you go into a diabetic coma) is entirely contrary to my religious values. For a Christian program to suggest (and often outright state) that discrimination against Gays is acceptable because they aren't referred to in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an abomination that Christians should not tolerate.
And yet so many do. And why? Because they possess a certain amount of authority. However, this is a matter for a different rant. Let's get back to business.
Many of these people would also not consider prostitutes or those who choose to indulge in vice (wine, women and song) to be a part of their society. Yet, where did Jesus spend all of his time? Did he hobnob with the CEO of Halliburton or Enron? Fuck no! He was right down there in the gutter with the drunks, lepers and whores, ministering to the people that needed them most.
And, let's face it: who needs most to be not discriminated against in the world? You guessed it: homosexuals. Jesus would be in favor of same-sex marriage, or at the very least civil unions. But try to convince people like bishop Fredrick Henry of this. They have answers for everything. Well, not really answers: half-answers. But, apparently, half-answers (much like half-truths) are supposed to be good enough.
Bishop Henry recently noted that not only did Jesus teach about unconditional love, he also taught about uncompromising truth. In other words, Jesus loves you, but since it still matters what you do, he does love you less if you're gay. Sinner.
And of course, the same telecast that decries the biased and unfair journalistic coverage of the comments of men such as bishop Henry also tries its hand at journalistic coverage of the gay marriage issue... which is unquestionably biased and partisan to their side of the issue. Hypocrites.
Furthermore, describing a man who denies that discrimination against homosexuals as a great humanitarian is equally as ridiculous as pretending that Stockwell Day (who tends to provide half-answers on important issues and full-answers on more or less irrelevant issues) still possesses any relevance in Canadian politics.
One look into the eyes of these people reveals that they are afraid. And if they could admit that, I could respect that. But using religion as a shield behind which they can hide that fear is a farce.
An utter, utter farce.
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Meditations on the Subject of Evil
Evil exists. Personally, I find it to be a little absurd that so many people in our society today wish to deny the existance of evil, but there is no question that it exists.
Frankly speaking, it is a big, scary, ugly world we live in. Whatever the source or ultimate cause may be, there is no question that there is a lot anger, meanness and bitterness in the world, and it hurts a lot of people on a day to day basis?
So, the question must be asked: if evil exists, then what is evil? Is evil a tangible force at work in the world around us, or is it an ideal? Is there any true concrete cross-cultural definition evil, or evil (like beauty) in the eye of the beholder?
There are a lot of arguments on both sides. Certainly, explorations of historical episodes such as the Holocaust (or, indeed, any to do with ethnic cleansing of any kind) are often used to explore the true nature of what evil is, or what evil isn't, but constantly come up short of giving us a real definition on which we can agree.
Essentially, what the question of evil may be decided upon is this: is evil the sum of the cause and effect of one's actions, or the sum of one's intentions?
Either way, the case could be made that someone such as Adolf Hitler (man, we claim to hate this guy but we loooooove to talk about him, don't we?) was evil. But a closer examination of Hitler seems to give people room to argue.
After all, some people argue that Hitler was not evil because he was doing everything he did in order to benefit the German people. It seems, however, that this line of argument ignores one crucial factor: how did the death of millions of Jews benefit even a single German citizen? Furthermore, how could these benefits possibly be worth millions of lives?
It could be argued that evil comes attached to a lack of value for human life, or at least a distorted value of human life. However, it could also be argued that "good" has often acted with a disregard for the value of human life. So once again, the scales draw evenly. Of course, it could be argued that often evil masquerades as something other than evil (which, as we are socialized to believe, is supposed to be "good").
How does one define evil then? There is one aspect of evil that seems to be ignored every now and then, and that is the small, every day evils that occur.
It is my belief that evil exists in the heart of everyone who just wants to hurt someone else, and in the mind of everyone who thinks that is all right. Evil is empowered by those who tolerate this, allowing this manner of behavior to continue.
Frankly speaking, it is a big, scary, ugly world we live in. Whatever the source or ultimate cause may be, there is no question that there is a lot anger, meanness and bitterness in the world, and it hurts a lot of people on a day to day basis?
So, the question must be asked: if evil exists, then what is evil? Is evil a tangible force at work in the world around us, or is it an ideal? Is there any true concrete cross-cultural definition evil, or evil (like beauty) in the eye of the beholder?
There are a lot of arguments on both sides. Certainly, explorations of historical episodes such as the Holocaust (or, indeed, any to do with ethnic cleansing of any kind) are often used to explore the true nature of what evil is, or what evil isn't, but constantly come up short of giving us a real definition on which we can agree.
Essentially, what the question of evil may be decided upon is this: is evil the sum of the cause and effect of one's actions, or the sum of one's intentions?
Either way, the case could be made that someone such as Adolf Hitler (man, we claim to hate this guy but we loooooove to talk about him, don't we?) was evil. But a closer examination of Hitler seems to give people room to argue.
After all, some people argue that Hitler was not evil because he was doing everything he did in order to benefit the German people. It seems, however, that this line of argument ignores one crucial factor: how did the death of millions of Jews benefit even a single German citizen? Furthermore, how could these benefits possibly be worth millions of lives?
It could be argued that evil comes attached to a lack of value for human life, or at least a distorted value of human life. However, it could also be argued that "good" has often acted with a disregard for the value of human life. So once again, the scales draw evenly. Of course, it could be argued that often evil masquerades as something other than evil (which, as we are socialized to believe, is supposed to be "good").
How does one define evil then? There is one aspect of evil that seems to be ignored every now and then, and that is the small, every day evils that occur.
It is my belief that evil exists in the heart of everyone who just wants to hurt someone else, and in the mind of everyone who thinks that is all right. Evil is empowered by those who tolerate this, allowing this manner of behavior to continue.
Friday, December 31, 2004
Gays vs. The Religious Right -- The Grudgematch
Yeah, like a homophobic tirade wouldn't be at all home here...
This isn't that. And it is. Or is it? To tell you the truth, I've forgotten already...
Oh, right! The topic is: Gay Marriage/ Gay Adoption/ Gay Milkshakes/ Gay... what have you.
Hoo boy, what a huge topic lately. And maybe it should be. The fact that there are elements of our society who seem to think it should be alright to take every homosexual in sight and hang them from the nearest tree is fairly scary and disturbing, but the politicization of the homosexual issue (whatever that issue may be) is something scary in an entirely different way.
I imagine there may have once been a time when one's sexuality was their own business, and not the concern of public domain. There may have once been a time such as this, but to tell you the truth, I can't remember it. And this may be because our society has chosen to divide itself along the battle lines of "gay vs. straight", and while one side seems to think it is going to force the world at large to accept and embrace it the other side seems to think it should have the right to wipe the other side out entirely.
And then, there's the rest of us, caught in the middle of this facade. Wondering "wait, whose business other than my own (and a consenting partner) where I stick my dick, or possibly a feminist-approved dick-substitute (at least according to Freud, who, as we know, was an immensely funny individual... at least I know he makes me laugh) other than my own?"*
We live in an age of partisan everything. Partisan politics, partisian religion, and now partisan sexuality.
Take, for example, the kerfluffle over the recent film Alexander. Now, according to a lot of gay and lesbian writers, we are supposed to believe that cutting the gay sex out of Alexander makes it a bad movie. Which doesn't, and which it isn't. One thing this is is censorship, which as many of us will agree is a bad thing, but it doesn't make this a bad movie. In fact, I probably (scratch that, definitely) enjoyed this movie a lot more because of the lack of gay sex. However, I do not approve of artistic censorship, but that's beyond the point.
It is extremely sad that some people seem to need to identify their sexual orientation/ethnicity/what-have-you with famous or historical figures in order to attempt to engineer acceptability for something that is already acceptable to begin with. The truth is, these people aren't trying to engineer acceptability, they're trying to engineer comfort. They are attempting to make themselves more comfortable with themselves by attaching a label that they (or someone else) have attached to them by also attaching it to someone else. The debate over whether or not Alexander the Great was gay is an example of this.
Alexander the Great may have been gay (as opposed to bisexual, or perhaps even heterosexual), but truthfully, this is incidental. What should it matter to anyone else what Alexander the Great did in his bedroom? Not a whole lot, truthfully.
Whenever I attempt to make the case that we do not truly know whether or not Alexander the Great was gay or bi or not, a lot of people make the assumption that I am assuming that he was straight, as if this would be any more foolish than assuming that he was gay (well, we know that Alexander had a son, but all we have to corroborate claims that he is gay is translations from legends written more than 2300 years ago, regardless, this is beyond the point).
There is also the vicious branding of closeted homosexuals as "cowards". While there may be a lot on the line for a lot of people with this issue, when our society will not respect the privacy of individuals (even within the confines of their own bedroom) we have a serious problem. I'm wondering: if organizations like GLAAD (mostly good people who do good work) are wondering what entities such as, say, the state of Alabama (so many backward jokes, so little time) are doing in their bedrooms, why does no one ever ask what GLAAD is doing in the bedroom of the governor of the State of New Jersey (I can't remember his name, and I'm too lazy to look it up)?
That, my friends, could be construed as hypocrisy.
But let's talk about hypocrisy, because it is one of my favourite subjects. Excuse me, one second, I have to go change hats...
...
...
...
OK, I'm back. Miss me? Yes? Good. No? I love you too. Anyhoo...
How about the religious right on this issue? Yes, we all love them with their "god hates fags" talk, and I thought it was sooo classy when they propested outside of the funeral of a murdered gay teen ager. What a great bunch of people.
God, as we all know, is supposed to be perfect. In the minds of these people, how does this correspond with also being a bigot (as they would tell us). Oh, yes, homosexuality is sinful. But, wait... if homosexuality is a sin, why did god create homosexuals?
Yeah, we'll be waiting for a clear answer on that for quite a while.
How about Jesus, who taught us to love thy neighbour, and who loved his own neighbours regardless of who they were? Let's have a real close look at the bible. If Jesus comes back right now (right now!) who's he going to hang with? George "Dubya" Bush or those gay pride parade folks who got pelted with pig manure in the states. By the way, that was real classy, as well.
Pens down, people. Who did Jesus hobnob with? If you said "the gutter folk" then you are exactly right. And why did Jesus hobnob with the gutter folk? Because they needed his love the most.
And maybe that's part of my point. If we're going to love our neighbour (in that brotherly, good will towards men sort of way) then maybe the idea of loving (in that brotherly good will towards men sort of way) that gay guy down the street shouldn't seem so repulsive to us. But wait, there's more!
Growing up, we are taught pretty often that people are not going to like you. People will find reasons not to like you. That's life. We can't make everyone we meet like us... but what if we could?
Would we want to? Should we want to? That sounds like an essay coming on...
But, it's New Years Eve, and I'm late for getting drunk, so I've gotta cut this short.
The idea that gays and lesbians are going to force people to accept them is folly. And truth be told, if someone looking for a reason not to like you finds "you're different" to be an acceptable reason, do you want that person as your friend or neighbour? Probably not.
There is no sense fighting battles that you aren't going to win. Thankfully, in this little dispute, there are plenty of battles that gays and lesbians ARE going to win. Like the battle of gay marriage. Accepbability will come later. Right now, just win the little battles.
The war will follow.
* Yes, I know that's a long fucking sentence, but it's a good one, ain't it?
This isn't that. And it is. Or is it? To tell you the truth, I've forgotten already...
Oh, right! The topic is: Gay Marriage/ Gay Adoption/ Gay Milkshakes/ Gay... what have you.
Hoo boy, what a huge topic lately. And maybe it should be. The fact that there are elements of our society who seem to think it should be alright to take every homosexual in sight and hang them from the nearest tree is fairly scary and disturbing, but the politicization of the homosexual issue (whatever that issue may be) is something scary in an entirely different way.
I imagine there may have once been a time when one's sexuality was their own business, and not the concern of public domain. There may have once been a time such as this, but to tell you the truth, I can't remember it. And this may be because our society has chosen to divide itself along the battle lines of "gay vs. straight", and while one side seems to think it is going to force the world at large to accept and embrace it the other side seems to think it should have the right to wipe the other side out entirely.
And then, there's the rest of us, caught in the middle of this facade. Wondering "wait, whose business other than my own (and a consenting partner) where I stick my dick, or possibly a feminist-approved dick-substitute (at least according to Freud, who, as we know, was an immensely funny individual... at least I know he makes me laugh) other than my own?"*
We live in an age of partisan everything. Partisan politics, partisian religion, and now partisan sexuality.
Take, for example, the kerfluffle over the recent film Alexander. Now, according to a lot of gay and lesbian writers, we are supposed to believe that cutting the gay sex out of Alexander makes it a bad movie. Which doesn't, and which it isn't. One thing this is is censorship, which as many of us will agree is a bad thing, but it doesn't make this a bad movie. In fact, I probably (scratch that, definitely) enjoyed this movie a lot more because of the lack of gay sex. However, I do not approve of artistic censorship, but that's beyond the point.
It is extremely sad that some people seem to need to identify their sexual orientation/ethnicity/what-have-you with famous or historical figures in order to attempt to engineer acceptability for something that is already acceptable to begin with. The truth is, these people aren't trying to engineer acceptability, they're trying to engineer comfort. They are attempting to make themselves more comfortable with themselves by attaching a label that they (or someone else) have attached to them by also attaching it to someone else. The debate over whether or not Alexander the Great was gay is an example of this.
Alexander the Great may have been gay (as opposed to bisexual, or perhaps even heterosexual), but truthfully, this is incidental. What should it matter to anyone else what Alexander the Great did in his bedroom? Not a whole lot, truthfully.
Whenever I attempt to make the case that we do not truly know whether or not Alexander the Great was gay or bi or not, a lot of people make the assumption that I am assuming that he was straight, as if this would be any more foolish than assuming that he was gay (well, we know that Alexander had a son, but all we have to corroborate claims that he is gay is translations from legends written more than 2300 years ago, regardless, this is beyond the point).
There is also the vicious branding of closeted homosexuals as "cowards". While there may be a lot on the line for a lot of people with this issue, when our society will not respect the privacy of individuals (even within the confines of their own bedroom) we have a serious problem. I'm wondering: if organizations like GLAAD (mostly good people who do good work) are wondering what entities such as, say, the state of Alabama (so many backward jokes, so little time) are doing in their bedrooms, why does no one ever ask what GLAAD is doing in the bedroom of the governor of the State of New Jersey (I can't remember his name, and I'm too lazy to look it up)?
That, my friends, could be construed as hypocrisy.
But let's talk about hypocrisy, because it is one of my favourite subjects. Excuse me, one second, I have to go change hats...
...
...
...
OK, I'm back. Miss me? Yes? Good. No? I love you too. Anyhoo...
How about the religious right on this issue? Yes, we all love them with their "god hates fags" talk, and I thought it was sooo classy when they propested outside of the funeral of a murdered gay teen ager. What a great bunch of people.
God, as we all know, is supposed to be perfect. In the minds of these people, how does this correspond with also being a bigot (as they would tell us). Oh, yes, homosexuality is sinful. But, wait... if homosexuality is a sin, why did god create homosexuals?
Yeah, we'll be waiting for a clear answer on that for quite a while.
How about Jesus, who taught us to love thy neighbour, and who loved his own neighbours regardless of who they were? Let's have a real close look at the bible. If Jesus comes back right now (right now!) who's he going to hang with? George "Dubya" Bush or those gay pride parade folks who got pelted with pig manure in the states. By the way, that was real classy, as well.
Pens down, people. Who did Jesus hobnob with? If you said "the gutter folk" then you are exactly right. And why did Jesus hobnob with the gutter folk? Because they needed his love the most.
And maybe that's part of my point. If we're going to love our neighbour (in that brotherly, good will towards men sort of way) then maybe the idea of loving (in that brotherly good will towards men sort of way) that gay guy down the street shouldn't seem so repulsive to us. But wait, there's more!
Growing up, we are taught pretty often that people are not going to like you. People will find reasons not to like you. That's life. We can't make everyone we meet like us... but what if we could?
Would we want to? Should we want to? That sounds like an essay coming on...
But, it's New Years Eve, and I'm late for getting drunk, so I've gotta cut this short.
The idea that gays and lesbians are going to force people to accept them is folly. And truth be told, if someone looking for a reason not to like you finds "you're different" to be an acceptable reason, do you want that person as your friend or neighbour? Probably not.
There is no sense fighting battles that you aren't going to win. Thankfully, in this little dispute, there are plenty of battles that gays and lesbians ARE going to win. Like the battle of gay marriage. Accepbability will come later. Right now, just win the little battles.
The war will follow.
* Yes, I know that's a long fucking sentence, but it's a good one, ain't it?
Friday, December 24, 2004
I Loves My Gun, But...
It's kind of funny what some people can justify believing. Take, for example, all the rucus over gun control.
OK, so Hitler was in favor of gun control. That's true, and that's fair. But believe me, if you want to round up a segment of the population and march them into concentration camps, you wouldn't want them to have guns, either. But at the same time, the opponents of gun control seem to like to enjoy ignoring a few points about guns:
First off, a gun is a weapon.
Secondly, given that a gun is a weapon, a gun has one purpose: to hurt and/or kill things.
Thirdly, given that a gun is a weapon and has one purpose (to hurt and/or kill things), guns are dangerous.
Finally, given that a gun is a weapon and has only one purpose (to hurt/and or kill things, or perhaps to be used as a threat in a rap song), and guns are dangerous, not everyone should have one.
Whew...
Anyhoo, yeah. The NRA are funny people. Let's insist we have the consitutional right to own a gun. That's real smart.
Believe me, a society where any retard, no matter how deranged, psychopathic or generally beligerent, can own a gun, is NOT a society you want to live in. And you can quote me on that.
Mind you, some opponents of gun control make a number of convincing points: back when every one owned guns, there were way fewer home invasions. I have no trouble believing this. If I'm a piece of burglar scum, I know I'd think twice about breaking and entering if it's probable that I'm going to get a gun the size of Mt. Rushmore shoved in my face (personally, I'm allergic to being filled full of holes). But unfortunately, these days some criminals have bigger guns than the army, so I'm going to dismiss this argument out-of-hand.
Take the recent shooting death of "Dimebag" Darryl Abbott (R.I.P.). While there are a relatively few options that concert security could have used to prevent this tragedy, nothing solves the problem of a retard with a gun like the retard never having a gun to begin with. Seems pretty simple, doesn't it? Maybe a little too simple.
Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule: psychologically unbalanced people would still be able to attain guns through illegal means (remember the Columbine twins?), but at least some degree of gun control has the capacity to prevent these sorts of tragedies.
Not that this excuses wastefulness by our "Liberal" government in Ottawa. The gun registry ultimately does little to control guns -- although it does provide RCMP with a possibly useful and life-saving database from which they can determine whether or not the home disturbance they are responding to might involve a weapon, which is actually a good thing. Furthermore, the gross ballooning of the gun control registry only demonstrates that the Liberal party bureaucracy couldn't organize a two-second moment of silence for Pierre Trudeau (B.I.H.).
Gun control may be necessary, but it must also necessarily be efficient and effective. Say it with me, Paul "efficient". Now, "effective".
Now, "accountable"...
OK, so Hitler was in favor of gun control. That's true, and that's fair. But believe me, if you want to round up a segment of the population and march them into concentration camps, you wouldn't want them to have guns, either. But at the same time, the opponents of gun control seem to like to enjoy ignoring a few points about guns:
First off, a gun is a weapon.
Secondly, given that a gun is a weapon, a gun has one purpose: to hurt and/or kill things.
Thirdly, given that a gun is a weapon and has one purpose (to hurt and/or kill things), guns are dangerous.
Finally, given that a gun is a weapon and has only one purpose (to hurt/and or kill things, or perhaps to be used as a threat in a rap song), and guns are dangerous, not everyone should have one.
Whew...
Anyhoo, yeah. The NRA are funny people. Let's insist we have the consitutional right to own a gun. That's real smart.
Believe me, a society where any retard, no matter how deranged, psychopathic or generally beligerent, can own a gun, is NOT a society you want to live in. And you can quote me on that.
Mind you, some opponents of gun control make a number of convincing points: back when every one owned guns, there were way fewer home invasions. I have no trouble believing this. If I'm a piece of burglar scum, I know I'd think twice about breaking and entering if it's probable that I'm going to get a gun the size of Mt. Rushmore shoved in my face (personally, I'm allergic to being filled full of holes). But unfortunately, these days some criminals have bigger guns than the army, so I'm going to dismiss this argument out-of-hand.
Take the recent shooting death of "Dimebag" Darryl Abbott (R.I.P.). While there are a relatively few options that concert security could have used to prevent this tragedy, nothing solves the problem of a retard with a gun like the retard never having a gun to begin with. Seems pretty simple, doesn't it? Maybe a little too simple.
Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule: psychologically unbalanced people would still be able to attain guns through illegal means (remember the Columbine twins?), but at least some degree of gun control has the capacity to prevent these sorts of tragedies.
Not that this excuses wastefulness by our "Liberal" government in Ottawa. The gun registry ultimately does little to control guns -- although it does provide RCMP with a possibly useful and life-saving database from which they can determine whether or not the home disturbance they are responding to might involve a weapon, which is actually a good thing. Furthermore, the gross ballooning of the gun control registry only demonstrates that the Liberal party bureaucracy couldn't organize a two-second moment of silence for Pierre Trudeau (B.I.H.).
Gun control may be necessary, but it must also necessarily be efficient and effective. Say it with me, Paul "efficient". Now, "effective".
Now, "accountable"...
Sunday, December 05, 2004
George Dubya Bush is (Not) the New Hitler
Dubya bashing is something I used to find fun. Not so much anymore, though.
First off, I'll admit it: the guy is a gay-bashing, election-stealing, Iraq-invading asshole and I don't like him any more than anyone else does. I find him to be a pretty reprehensible excuse for a world leader, and a black eye on the face of democracy.
But lately, those obsessed with Dubya bashing have made it little or no fun for the amateur Dubya bashers such as myself. Recently, I sat in one of my classes and listened to one of my classmates tell us about how Bush personifies all the problems discussed in post-modernist feminism, and couldn't help but think to myself: "oh, please".
Bush is not the new Hitler, as much as some people would like to have us believe. Second of all, an official visit to Canada by Bush is not the travesty many people would have us believe it is.
Let's swear off diplomatic relations with the world's most powerful head of state: yeah, that's real fucking smart.
What is funny to me, however, is the naivete that soaks through the anti-Bush movement. Many of these people obviously have little or no clue about what Bush is trying to accomplish, and what he is about. Not that Bush is trying to accomplish anything good, or that he stands for anything of the like, but there is a point to be made here.
Let's start with the war in Iraq. It was the wrong move, a violation of another nation's soveignty. Missile diplomacy has never worked for the United States, and no one should ever have had any expectation that it would. But there things this war is about, and things it is NOT about.
First off, this war is NOT about oil. Somehow, this point will be lost on the Bush-haters, but I'm going to make it anyway, and then allow the Bush-haters to prove their ignorance. The fact is, that Iraqi oil is not any more available to U.S. markets than it was prior to Saddam's war. Because there is a simple fact that many people over look pertaining to this issue: SADDAM WANTED TO SELL THE UNITED STATES OIL. In fact, he wanted to sell it to the entire Northern Hemisphere. The state of the Iraqi economy after the Persian Gulf war necessitated this, but the economic sanctions imposed by the United States wouldn't allow this, and for good reason: Saddam Hussein has a history of selling his country's natural rescources and then accumulating a clear majority of the wealth to him and his sons. This is a demonstrable fact, symbolized by the sheer number of lavish Presidential Palaces in Iraq, some of which are said to rival the palace of Versailles. Furthermore, this war is not about contracts for Halliburton, or profit for the American corporate/military/political complex. It is the American CMP complex that is paying for the rebuilding of Iraq.
This war is about something far more insidious than war: it is about political (not military, or economic) imperialism. It is about using Iraq as a base from which to re-concieve the Middle Eastern political climate as one that is friendly to the United States. And while trying to impose democracy on a culture with absolutely no democratic history that this can be based upon is nothing short of folly, it could arguably be a good move. After all, it worked in Germany and Japan following World War Two. Germany and Japan are both (arguably) better off for this democratization. However, recent events in Germany, particularly the resurgency of the Neo-Nazi party suggests that democracy may not have been successful as we would like to believe. Keep posted for further details.
However, this war was built on a lie. Maybe not so much a lie as "selective truth", but it was built on a sort of mistruth, nonetheless. The United States undermined a legitimate United Nations organization and undermined official diplomacy in order to launch their war on Iraq, and this cannot be ignored. These are the acts of a leader that is in some ways every bit as corrupt as Saddam Hussein (who, a lot of Bush-haters seem to have forgotten, is still a bad bad little boy).
Another point of anti-Bush contention of the Strategic Defense Initiative (or, was we all know it, Star Wars). Many people protest the development of the missile defense shield, but for these people, it would seem, a little lesson in the surrent state of affairs in the world is necessary. I'll try to dumb it down for them as much as I can:
You see, in the world today, we have these things called "Nuclear Missiles" these are things that make lots of other things go "boom" and kill lots and lots of people. They are a threat not only to individual nations but to all life on earth. As long as these things called "Nuclear Missiles" (are you following me?) continue to exist (and in some cases be controlled by irresponsible or dangerous rulers) than any nation that makes an attempt to build a defense against them is not doing anything wrong or, necessarily, aggressive, but are simply taking practical steps to ensure a defense against them. It's called "prudence".
Take, for example, Kim Jong Il in North Korea. This man controls Nuclear Weapons. This man is a very dangerous man. This man is so afraid of the United States, if he ever suspected that he could safely launch a preemptive nuclear strike against the Americans, he would do so. Even the Chinese (North Korea's closest allies) consider him to be a very dangerous rogue leader.
Of course, in the wake of massive tax cuts to the rich (money that has to be made up somewhere, obviously from the poor) this is a responsible move made in lieu of other responsible moves. When the poor are made poorer so that the rich can be made richer, something terribly wrong has happened. The last time I checked, this was supposed to be the 21st century, not the 19th century. Apparently, Dubya missed the memo.
And yes, Bush is a buffoon. If his father hadn't been a fairly successful president of the United States, Dubya probably could have never managed to even get on the ballots for the Republican Candidacy. This is a man who failed spectacularly at everything he has attempted in his life thus far. This is a man who deserted during the war in Vietnam, only to launch an equally disastrous war in Iraq -- statistics tell us that the same proportionate number of soldiers have thus far died in Iraq as in Vietnam.
Yes, it's OK to hate Bush. But let's hate Bush for the right reasons, instead of concocting reasons to hate him, or hating him for the reasons of a bunch of uber-"left"-wing hippies, the majority of whom could barely sneak through their respective universities by the skin of their teeth.
First off, I'll admit it: the guy is a gay-bashing, election-stealing, Iraq-invading asshole and I don't like him any more than anyone else does. I find him to be a pretty reprehensible excuse for a world leader, and a black eye on the face of democracy.
But lately, those obsessed with Dubya bashing have made it little or no fun for the amateur Dubya bashers such as myself. Recently, I sat in one of my classes and listened to one of my classmates tell us about how Bush personifies all the problems discussed in post-modernist feminism, and couldn't help but think to myself: "oh, please".
Bush is not the new Hitler, as much as some people would like to have us believe. Second of all, an official visit to Canada by Bush is not the travesty many people would have us believe it is.
Let's swear off diplomatic relations with the world's most powerful head of state: yeah, that's real fucking smart.
What is funny to me, however, is the naivete that soaks through the anti-Bush movement. Many of these people obviously have little or no clue about what Bush is trying to accomplish, and what he is about. Not that Bush is trying to accomplish anything good, or that he stands for anything of the like, but there is a point to be made here.
Let's start with the war in Iraq. It was the wrong move, a violation of another nation's soveignty. Missile diplomacy has never worked for the United States, and no one should ever have had any expectation that it would. But there things this war is about, and things it is NOT about.
First off, this war is NOT about oil. Somehow, this point will be lost on the Bush-haters, but I'm going to make it anyway, and then allow the Bush-haters to prove their ignorance. The fact is, that Iraqi oil is not any more available to U.S. markets than it was prior to Saddam's war. Because there is a simple fact that many people over look pertaining to this issue: SADDAM WANTED TO SELL THE UNITED STATES OIL. In fact, he wanted to sell it to the entire Northern Hemisphere. The state of the Iraqi economy after the Persian Gulf war necessitated this, but the economic sanctions imposed by the United States wouldn't allow this, and for good reason: Saddam Hussein has a history of selling his country's natural rescources and then accumulating a clear majority of the wealth to him and his sons. This is a demonstrable fact, symbolized by the sheer number of lavish Presidential Palaces in Iraq, some of which are said to rival the palace of Versailles. Furthermore, this war is not about contracts for Halliburton, or profit for the American corporate/military/political complex. It is the American CMP complex that is paying for the rebuilding of Iraq.
This war is about something far more insidious than war: it is about political (not military, or economic) imperialism. It is about using Iraq as a base from which to re-concieve the Middle Eastern political climate as one that is friendly to the United States. And while trying to impose democracy on a culture with absolutely no democratic history that this can be based upon is nothing short of folly, it could arguably be a good move. After all, it worked in Germany and Japan following World War Two. Germany and Japan are both (arguably) better off for this democratization. However, recent events in Germany, particularly the resurgency of the Neo-Nazi party suggests that democracy may not have been successful as we would like to believe. Keep posted for further details.
However, this war was built on a lie. Maybe not so much a lie as "selective truth", but it was built on a sort of mistruth, nonetheless. The United States undermined a legitimate United Nations organization and undermined official diplomacy in order to launch their war on Iraq, and this cannot be ignored. These are the acts of a leader that is in some ways every bit as corrupt as Saddam Hussein (who, a lot of Bush-haters seem to have forgotten, is still a bad bad little boy).
Another point of anti-Bush contention of the Strategic Defense Initiative (or, was we all know it, Star Wars). Many people protest the development of the missile defense shield, but for these people, it would seem, a little lesson in the surrent state of affairs in the world is necessary. I'll try to dumb it down for them as much as I can:
You see, in the world today, we have these things called "Nuclear Missiles" these are things that make lots of other things go "boom" and kill lots and lots of people. They are a threat not only to individual nations but to all life on earth. As long as these things called "Nuclear Missiles" (are you following me?) continue to exist (and in some cases be controlled by irresponsible or dangerous rulers) than any nation that makes an attempt to build a defense against them is not doing anything wrong or, necessarily, aggressive, but are simply taking practical steps to ensure a defense against them. It's called "prudence".
Take, for example, Kim Jong Il in North Korea. This man controls Nuclear Weapons. This man is a very dangerous man. This man is so afraid of the United States, if he ever suspected that he could safely launch a preemptive nuclear strike against the Americans, he would do so. Even the Chinese (North Korea's closest allies) consider him to be a very dangerous rogue leader.
Of course, in the wake of massive tax cuts to the rich (money that has to be made up somewhere, obviously from the poor) this is a responsible move made in lieu of other responsible moves. When the poor are made poorer so that the rich can be made richer, something terribly wrong has happened. The last time I checked, this was supposed to be the 21st century, not the 19th century. Apparently, Dubya missed the memo.
And yes, Bush is a buffoon. If his father hadn't been a fairly successful president of the United States, Dubya probably could have never managed to even get on the ballots for the Republican Candidacy. This is a man who failed spectacularly at everything he has attempted in his life thus far. This is a man who deserted during the war in Vietnam, only to launch an equally disastrous war in Iraq -- statistics tell us that the same proportionate number of soldiers have thus far died in Iraq as in Vietnam.
Yes, it's OK to hate Bush. But let's hate Bush for the right reasons, instead of concocting reasons to hate him, or hating him for the reasons of a bunch of uber-"left"-wing hippies, the majority of whom could barely sneak through their respective universities by the skin of their teeth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)