Wednesday, October 26, 2011
The Best Thing About Being Stubborn, Mary Walsh, Is That You Always Know What You'll Be Thinking Tomorrow
Mary Walsh pretending she did nothing wrong
Apparently, the shock that she isn't funny -- or talented -- is too much for This Hour Has 22 Minutes "comedian" Mary Walsh.
In the wake of her invasion of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford's privacy, frightening his six-year-old daughter, Walsh is refusing to admit that she's done anything wrong.
The best thing about being stubborn is that you know what you'll be thinking tomorrow. Apparently, what Walsh is thinking today is that she was trying to give Ford advice.
“He obviously was not going to listen to any advice I had ... or have anything to do with us whatsoever,” Walsh complained. (The detail that no one in their right mind would the advice of a tragically unfunny comedian is clearly one that has entirely evaded her.) “I’m a 60-year-old woman with a plastic sword. I was just going to give him a bit of friendly advice.”
If Walsh was really trying to offer him some friendly advice -- everyone who isn't entirely numb between the ears knows full well she wasn't -- she might have attempted to get in touch with him at City Hall. As she told Sun News' Joe Warmington, she didn't even try.
This Hour Has 22 Minutes producers explain that they asked Ford to appear on the program in August. He declined. So their decision was to ambush him at his home. Now they're stubbornly refusing to admit that they crossed the line.
When Walsh and the producers of 22 Minutes have become so disjointed that they can't keep their behaviour firmly on the rails, it's time to go. If they won't resign, it's time for CBC to fire them.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Jason Unruhe on Muammar al-Gadhafi's "Black Migrant Workers"
From the man who brought you "the Cultural Revolution was just a big debate", comes this stupidity:
For the record, Unruhe is also cheering on Saif-Gadhafi, as he promises to win one back for the bad guys and bring his own unique brand of tyranny to Libya.
For the record, Unruhe is also cheering on Saif-Gadhafi, as he promises to win one back for the bad guys and bring his own unique brand of tyranny to Libya.
The CBC, Unhinged
No laughs to be found when comedy comes second to politics
The CBC has a problem with its comedy. Or, rather, a new problem.
For a very long time, the biggest problem with CBC's comedy was that -- unless it was airing Just For Laughs -- the comedy mostly just wasn't funny. Rick Mercer would have the occasional moment, but the political sanctimony of what was passed off as comedy overwhelmed any sense of humour.
This Hour Has 22 Minutes has long been exhibit A in the sheer unfunniness of CBC's comedy offerings. The cast of 22 Minutes has long been made up of untalented hacks more interested in grinding their own political axes than in making the audience laugh. They could elicit the occasional giggle from left-wingers who found their offerings ideologically soothing, but very little from anyone whose political opinions veer even slightly to the right of a Phish concert.
(BTW, Phish sucks.)
Mary Walsh has pretty much set the bar for unfunny comedy on 22 Minutes, but in recent years she's had some competition from Geri Hall. Consider a Sun News Network parody featuring Margaret Atwood in which Hall and Atwood take token potshots at the fledgling news network and generally take turns at being incredibly unfunny.
Apparently "the home of real news spoken by fake blondes" is Hall's idea of a rolling-on-the-floor laugher. And while some cretins delighted in it, most rational people quickly tire of watching something that makes it clear that it's a malicious hit-piece cobbled together by far-lefty "comedians" who were outraged by a challenging interview that wasn't nearly as outrageous as they want to pretend it is.
That the CBC had previously employed Krista Erickson, the target of the comedy sketch-cum-smear, only further reveals just how unhinged the cast of 22 Minutes has become. In dumping so eagerly on a former CBC journalist -- one who served the CBC, although not without controversy, until she chose to go elsewhere -- is making an undeniable statement about the quality of journalism at the CBC.
They're evidently unafraid of dumping all over their own colleagues in order to direct their rage at a former colleague, now turned adversary by way of her employment at a rival network, one one which differing viewpoints have proliferated.
But just how unhinged has the cast and crew of 22 Minutes become? Just ask Toronto Mayor Rob Ford.
Cue the terminally-unfunny Mary Walsh once more. In staging an "ambush interview" for the show, Walsh wasn't interested in waiting for Ford at Toronto City Hall. No, instead she decided to ambush him in his driveway, as he was taking his 6 year-old daughter to school.
Walsh apparently frightened Ford's daughter, and to be frank: who wouldn't be? To behold Walsh, in the pitch of her demagogic fury, raving at the top of her lungs would frighten a lot of adults. Adults, fortunately, are well-equipped to deal with the appearance of a crazy lady on their drive way. Children, not so much.
What's become the most remarkable thing about the confrontation is just how much the 22 Minutes cast and crew just don't get it.
“We were actually surprised at how humourless his response was,” remarked 22 Minutes producer Michael Donovan.
Perhaps if Ezra Levant were to turn up on Donovan's driveway, waving around a plastic sword and shoving a microphone in Donovan's face while his children are present, Donovan would better understand.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Does It Get Better?
Maybe not... if you're John Baird
Following the suicide of yet another bullied gay teen -- it's been happening with heartbreaking frequency lately -- one would expect that LGBT activists in Canada would welcome Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird taking a stand to stop homophobic bullying.
Think again.
Baird responded to the suicide of Jamie Hubley in both a statement in the House of Commons and in a YouTube video produced as part of the "It Gets Better" campaign. In both cases, speaking out against homophobic bullying.
Many hardline LGBT activists haven't welcomed Baird's stand against this scourge of the LGBT community. Instead, they're angry that Baird would dare denounce homophobic bullying.
To various LGBT activists, Baird has a dirty little secret.
Except that it's not really dirty, and not really a secret. Really, they're just determined to denounce him no matter what. No matter what.
So in the wake of Baird's statement and video, self-described LGBT activists took to Twitter to denounce him as allegedly hypocritical for being an allegedly closeted gay man.
"Okay, I'm still livid," fumed Ariel Troster. "John Baird isn't even brave enough to come out and he's telling youth #itgetsbetter?"
"If it gets better then GET OUT OF THE F*CKING CLOSET JOHN BAIRD, YOU HYPOCRITICAL COWARD," raged @Kyle_A.
"If Min John Baird really wants to set a good example for Gay teens he should finally come out of the closet himself," declared @RustyBoyRobot.
It's a confusing response to such a laudable act by Baird, one that belies an odd autocratic attitude by some LGBT activists towards their own: simply, that they demand the right to dictate to John Baird how he will live his life.
To claim that Baird is "closeted" would overlook the fact that Baird's sexuality is common knowledge to many of those who follow Canadian politics. But although Baird has never been secretive about his sexuality, he has been quiet about it. There's a difference.
Baird prefers to live his private life in dignity as he sees it. That's not enough for some militant LGBT activists, who demand that he live his life as they see fit: as some kind of human billboard for the Canadian LGBT community.
Not only is it shameful, but it threatens the simple moral principle that motivates any conservative who supports equal rights -- equal meaning precisely that: equal -- that people have the right to live their lives in any law-abiding manner they choose.
Homosexuality, as serious-minded Canadians know, is not a choice. But how someone chooses to live as a homosexual is. Not every Canadian LGBT should be herded onto a gay pride float once a year if that isn't how they want to live their life.
If John Baird prefers to live his private life, well... privately, that's his right. It isn't for militant LGBT activists -- or anyone else -- to dictate to him that he should do otherwise.
The numerous individuals trying to politicize this issue and deny John Baird the credit he has earned for his laudable stand against homophobic bullying should all be absolutely ashamed of themselves.
Following the suicide of yet another bullied gay teen -- it's been happening with heartbreaking frequency lately -- one would expect that LGBT activists in Canada would welcome Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird taking a stand to stop homophobic bullying.
Think again.
Baird responded to the suicide of Jamie Hubley in both a statement in the House of Commons and in a YouTube video produced as part of the "It Gets Better" campaign. In both cases, speaking out against homophobic bullying.
Many hardline LGBT activists haven't welcomed Baird's stand against this scourge of the LGBT community. Instead, they're angry that Baird would dare denounce homophobic bullying.
To various LGBT activists, Baird has a dirty little secret.
Except that it's not really dirty, and not really a secret. Really, they're just determined to denounce him no matter what. No matter what.
So in the wake of Baird's statement and video, self-described LGBT activists took to Twitter to denounce him as allegedly hypocritical for being an allegedly closeted gay man.
"Okay, I'm still livid," fumed Ariel Troster. "John Baird isn't even brave enough to come out and he's telling youth #itgetsbetter?"
"If it gets better then GET OUT OF THE F*CKING CLOSET JOHN BAIRD, YOU HYPOCRITICAL COWARD," raged @Kyle_A.
"If Min John Baird really wants to set a good example for Gay teens he should finally come out of the closet himself," declared @RustyBoyRobot.
It's a confusing response to such a laudable act by Baird, one that belies an odd autocratic attitude by some LGBT activists towards their own: simply, that they demand the right to dictate to John Baird how he will live his life.
To claim that Baird is "closeted" would overlook the fact that Baird's sexuality is common knowledge to many of those who follow Canadian politics. But although Baird has never been secretive about his sexuality, he has been quiet about it. There's a difference.
Baird prefers to live his private life in dignity as he sees it. That's not enough for some militant LGBT activists, who demand that he live his life as they see fit: as some kind of human billboard for the Canadian LGBT community.
Not only is it shameful, but it threatens the simple moral principle that motivates any conservative who supports equal rights -- equal meaning precisely that: equal -- that people have the right to live their lives in any law-abiding manner they choose.
Homosexuality, as serious-minded Canadians know, is not a choice. But how someone chooses to live as a homosexual is. Not every Canadian LGBT should be herded onto a gay pride float once a year if that isn't how they want to live their life.
If John Baird prefers to live his private life, well... privately, that's his right. It isn't for militant LGBT activists -- or anyone else -- to dictate to him that he should do otherwise.
The numerous individuals trying to politicize this issue and deny John Baird the credit he has earned for his laudable stand against homophobic bullying should all be absolutely ashamed of themselves.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Lizzie May: Not in Favour of a Fair Distribution?
Green Party leader pretends to be a target
With the NDP already pledged to oppose legislation to grant additional Parliamentary seats to Canada's fastest-growing provinces -- namely, Alberta, BC and Ontario -- it was only a matter of time before the rest of the opposition found a way to justify opposing the bill as well.
Green Party leader Elizabeth May seems to have found her pretext: as with so many things, the self-absorbed May considers the bill to be an attack on her, directly.
Waving around a Conservative Party newsletter in which Saanich-Gulf Islands Tory Bruce Hallsor notes that the re-distrubtion may make it easier for them to beat May in the next election.
May seems to think the newsletter is incriminating, but all she's offered is what is currently just idle speculation.
Of course, the detail that the Globe and Mail's projections are not based on any proposed re-districting -- no such proposals exist until independent commissions have done their work -- but only on votes cast in the past election will almost certainly be ignored by May.
In the end, it's purely intuitive: the party with the largest share of the vote in each of these provinces will reap the biggest reward. The Tories dominate in Alberta, are strong in BC, and swept Ontario in the 2011 election.
When one considers where the additional ridings need to be added to account for population growth -- in Northern Alberta, central BC, and suburban GTA -- it's not at all surprising that the strength of the Conservative vote in these areas would yield victories for Conservatives.
It's the just the way things are right now. If the work of these independent commissions concludes that the boundaries of Saanich-Gulf Islands should be redrawn, it's just the way it will be. To tailor the process just to suit May would be a dereliction of the commission's responsibilities: namely, to produce a re-distribution that is fair to all constituents, not just to May.
If Elizabeth May and the Green Party don't like it, perhaps they should campaign harder in those areas, and propose policy that will appeal to, as opposed to repulse, those voters.
With the NDP already pledged to oppose legislation to grant additional Parliamentary seats to Canada's fastest-growing provinces -- namely, Alberta, BC and Ontario -- it was only a matter of time before the rest of the opposition found a way to justify opposing the bill as well.
Green Party leader Elizabeth May seems to have found her pretext: as with so many things, the self-absorbed May considers the bill to be an attack on her, directly.
Waving around a Conservative Party newsletter in which Saanich-Gulf Islands Tory Bruce Hallsor notes that the re-distrubtion may make it easier for them to beat May in the next election.
May seems to think the newsletter is incriminating, but all she's offered is what is currently just idle speculation.
Of course, the detail that the Globe and Mail's projections are not based on any proposed re-districting -- no such proposals exist until independent commissions have done their work -- but only on votes cast in the past election will almost certainly be ignored by May.
In the end, it's purely intuitive: the party with the largest share of the vote in each of these provinces will reap the biggest reward. The Tories dominate in Alberta, are strong in BC, and swept Ontario in the 2011 election.
When one considers where the additional ridings need to be added to account for population growth -- in Northern Alberta, central BC, and suburban GTA -- it's not at all surprising that the strength of the Conservative vote in these areas would yield victories for Conservatives.
It's the just the way things are right now. If the work of these independent commissions concludes that the boundaries of Saanich-Gulf Islands should be redrawn, it's just the way it will be. To tailor the process just to suit May would be a dereliction of the commission's responsibilities: namely, to produce a re-distribution that is fair to all constituents, not just to May.
If Elizabeth May and the Green Party don't like it, perhaps they should campaign harder in those areas, and propose policy that will appeal to, as opposed to repulse, those voters.
NDP Response to Saskatchewan Party Ad "Childish"?
Prior to the beginning of the 2011 Saskatchewan election, the NDP released an ad that featured a fabricated quote, portrayed as from Saskatchewan Party leader (and Premier) Brad Wall.
When challenged over the blatantly deceitful ad, NDP House Leader Kevin Yates dismissed the Saskatchewan Party's complaints over the ad as "childish".
Now, the Saskatchewan Party is running an ad the NDP insists is untrue.
The ad notes that Nexen, the oil company NDP leader Dwain Lingenfelter worked for, moved its head office to Calgary, and insists Lingenfelter did it.
Then-Nexen CEO Charlie Fischer insists that Lingenfelter didn't make the decision to move Nexen's head office to Calgary. But as it turns out, Lingenfelter was still involved.
To move the Nexen head office to Calgary required repeal of the Wascana Act, which stipulated that the head office of the company had to remain located in Saskatchewan. Wascana Energy had formerly been known as SaskOil.
Lingenfelter lobbied Kindersley MLA Bill Boyd to support the repeal of the Wascana Act. (Boyd isn't clear on whether or not ne actually supported the repeal.)
Dwain Lingenfelter's involvement in the reloaction of Nexen's head office, however, is undeniable. The NDP's response to this ad is childish and over the top. After all, unlike the NDP, they didn't lie.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
But We Mustn't Call it a Coalition...
Nathan Cullen proposes "coalition lite"
With Nathan Cullen contesting the leadership of the NDP, it's as fair a question to answer as for any other candidate:
What, precisely, does Cullen have to offer?
As it turns out, the answer is "very little". To date, Cullen's offering in the leadership campaign is "beat Harper", and not much else. To whit, Cullen is recommending that the NDP run "joint candidates" to defeat Conservative candidates.0
Is it coalition lite? Or merger lite?
It doesn't seem to matter to Cullen. To him, it's the prefect way to pander to a wider variety of left-wing voters.
"I believe now is the time to respond to the call from people of all walks of life, who hate that Stephen Harper can change our country for the worse with support of less than four in 10 voters," Cullen declared. "For me, the greater cause is that the wedge politics of the Stephen Harper government are killing us. ... We need to find a way to speak past the narrow political interests of parties from time to time."
A very real question must persist over whether or not those same people liked it when Jean Chretien was able to govern Canada with the support of less than four in ten voters. It also seems necessary to remember that it was that same Chretien government that slashed healthcare and education funding.
Yet the NDP -- whose bread-and-butter issue is healthcare -- never pulled out all the stops to team with their fellow opposition parties to put a stop to that in 1997. Very curious.
Non-ironies aside, this is an idea that only could have come from the NDP at a time when they're ahead of the Liberal Party, both in seat count and in popular support. In this sense, Cullen is very opportunistic with an idea he very clearly hasn't thought through.
For example, with whose caucus would a joint candidate sit? The Liberal Caucus? The Green Party Caucus? The NDP caucus? As an independent?
The only way an idea like this can be said to even remotely work would be within a formal coalition -- and Canadians have already shown what they think of that. Even if Cullen hasn't learned his lesson in this regard, his fellow leadership candidates seem to -- they've all given the idea their staunch disapproval.
This, along with the detail that joint candidates would require participation from another party. The Liberal Party is practically guaranteed to refuse.
Cullen will almost certainly remain undeterred.
"I have no problem going up against Stephen Harper one on one," Cullen declared. "This just makes it a slam dunk."
Not many Conservatives would worry much about a Stephen Harper/Nathan Cullen match-up in a federal election. Cullen's half-baked ideas are nothing to worry about.
With Nathan Cullen contesting the leadership of the NDP, it's as fair a question to answer as for any other candidate:
What, precisely, does Cullen have to offer?
As it turns out, the answer is "very little". To date, Cullen's offering in the leadership campaign is "beat Harper", and not much else. To whit, Cullen is recommending that the NDP run "joint candidates" to defeat Conservative candidates.0
Is it coalition lite? Or merger lite?
It doesn't seem to matter to Cullen. To him, it's the prefect way to pander to a wider variety of left-wing voters.
"I believe now is the time to respond to the call from people of all walks of life, who hate that Stephen Harper can change our country for the worse with support of less than four in 10 voters," Cullen declared. "For me, the greater cause is that the wedge politics of the Stephen Harper government are killing us. ... We need to find a way to speak past the narrow political interests of parties from time to time."
A very real question must persist over whether or not those same people liked it when Jean Chretien was able to govern Canada with the support of less than four in ten voters. It also seems necessary to remember that it was that same Chretien government that slashed healthcare and education funding.
Yet the NDP -- whose bread-and-butter issue is healthcare -- never pulled out all the stops to team with their fellow opposition parties to put a stop to that in 1997. Very curious.
Non-ironies aside, this is an idea that only could have come from the NDP at a time when they're ahead of the Liberal Party, both in seat count and in popular support. In this sense, Cullen is very opportunistic with an idea he very clearly hasn't thought through.
For example, with whose caucus would a joint candidate sit? The Liberal Caucus? The Green Party Caucus? The NDP caucus? As an independent?
The only way an idea like this can be said to even remotely work would be within a formal coalition -- and Canadians have already shown what they think of that. Even if Cullen hasn't learned his lesson in this regard, his fellow leadership candidates seem to -- they've all given the idea their staunch disapproval.
This, along with the detail that joint candidates would require participation from another party. The Liberal Party is practically guaranteed to refuse.
Cullen will almost certainly remain undeterred.
"I have no problem going up against Stephen Harper one on one," Cullen declared. "This just makes it a slam dunk."
Not many Conservatives would worry much about a Stephen Harper/Nathan Cullen match-up in a federal election. Cullen's half-baked ideas are nothing to worry about.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Desperation is Not the Answer
NDP running on rent control in Saskatchewan
With his leadership already a disaster and an election already in progress, there's nothing Saskatchewan NDP leader Dwain Lingenfelter can do but try to put an optimistic face on it.
Although he tried to fire his supporters up by forecasting an NDP victory in the 2011 election, Lingenfelter and the NDP are simply desperate.
They were desperate when they produced a campaign advertisement that fabricated an anti-labour quote by Premier Brad Wall. And they're desperate when they turn to rent control as a key campaign plank.
The party has pledged to throw $320 million at a housing strategy in Saskatchewan which will basically combine government-funded housing developments with rent control.
This is remarkable, when all they really have to do is leave the market alone to work; which is something that, for all its occasional frustration, is something that has always worked far better than government intervention.
As a policy, rent control has been destructive everywhere it's been implemented. It discourages property owners from offering housing units for rent, and discourages the construction of additional units. It produces a social loss.
Of course, with the levels of support in Saskatchewan being what they are, this isn't a policy the NDP has a prayer of ever being able to implement. It's simply desperate pandering to its own base, to the crowd who turned out for events such as Occupy Saskatoon.
By offering up a policy such as rent control, Lingenfelter has certainly boosted his chances of getting those people out to vote. But the average citizen of Saskatchewan, who are quite pleased with the job Wall has done as Premier, is the vote that Lingenfelter needs. He's just guaranteed he won't be able to get that vote.
If Dwain Lingenfelter really wanted to lead the NDP to victory in Saskatchewan, he would have dispensed with this policy as quickly as it was dreamed up. But Lingenfelter must, by now, know that he can't win this election.
He's simply embraced the politics of desperation, clearly did so long before this election, and should have resigned as NDP leader the second he did.
With his leadership already a disaster and an election already in progress, there's nothing Saskatchewan NDP leader Dwain Lingenfelter can do but try to put an optimistic face on it.
They were desperate when they produced a campaign advertisement that fabricated an anti-labour quote by Premier Brad Wall. And they're desperate when they turn to rent control as a key campaign plank.
The party has pledged to throw $320 million at a housing strategy in Saskatchewan which will basically combine government-funded housing developments with rent control.
This is remarkable, when all they really have to do is leave the market alone to work; which is something that, for all its occasional frustration, is something that has always worked far better than government intervention.
As a policy, rent control has been destructive everywhere it's been implemented. It discourages property owners from offering housing units for rent, and discourages the construction of additional units. It produces a social loss.
Of course, with the levels of support in Saskatchewan being what they are, this isn't a policy the NDP has a prayer of ever being able to implement. It's simply desperate pandering to its own base, to the crowd who turned out for events such as Occupy Saskatoon.
By offering up a policy such as rent control, Lingenfelter has certainly boosted his chances of getting those people out to vote. But the average citizen of Saskatchewan, who are quite pleased with the job Wall has done as Premier, is the vote that Lingenfelter needs. He's just guaranteed he won't be able to get that vote.
If Dwain Lingenfelter really wanted to lead the NDP to victory in Saskatchewan, he would have dispensed with this policy as quickly as it was dreamed up. But Lingenfelter must, by now, know that he can't win this election.
He's simply embraced the politics of desperation, clearly did so long before this election, and should have resigned as NDP leader the second he did.
Herman Cain's AFP Association Sure to Set Off Koch-Obsessed Loonies
Far-left lunatics certain to target Cain over Americans For Prosperity
Quite often, politics is a game of non-revelations as much as it is a game of revelations.
Such is the case with the recent non-revelation that Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain has had a long association with Americans For Prosperity, a political advocacy group that has enjoyed generous financial support from Charles and David Koch.
For the far-left the Koch brothers are the favourite political bogeymen, supporting various conservative political causes. That they are also billionaires makes them easy targets for those willing to overlook the extent to which George Soros -- also a billionaire -- generously financing various left-wing causes.
It's no great secret that Cain's candidacy as a Republican was sure to trigger the deepest racial ethos of the far-left. No lesser a far-left whacko luminary than Janeane Garofalo would publicly surmise that Cain was being paid to run for President. Perhaps now she'll be emboldened to suggest that maybe, just maybe, it's the Koch brothers allegedly paying him.
Certainly, it's a hilariously stupid suggestion on its face. But Garofalo has been both a reliable and shameless source of this kind of commentary.
This is the kind of thing that one can expect to see now that the Koch brothers cat is out of the bag.
Of course, Cain's long association with AFP has never been a secret. In 2005-06, Cain was involved in the AFP's Prosperity Expansion Project, travelling the United States to speak to fledgling AFP chapters.
Any suggestion that the AFP was simply a front for corporate greed, or a stidently pro-Republican organization would be quickly swept aside that AFP opposed the automaker bailout administered by George W Bush.
Details, details.
For those among the American far-left who draw every breath obsessed with the Koch brothers, nothing so mundane as facts will be enough to allay their hysteria.
But in the end, that will likely be as much an asset to Herman Cain. Cain's fundamentally rational approach to economics will only appear more rational next to the crazed fantasy-based ideas set forth by those who will rave incessantly about Cain's remote connection to the Koch brothers via Americans For Prosperity.
In an era where politics is quickly becoming about sorting out rational people from the crazies, the reaction by the anti-Koch left will only solidify Herman Cain's standing in the former camp, and the anti-Koch left's standing in the latter.
Quite often, politics is a game of non-revelations as much as it is a game of revelations.
Such is the case with the recent non-revelation that Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain has had a long association with Americans For Prosperity, a political advocacy group that has enjoyed generous financial support from Charles and David Koch.
For the far-left the Koch brothers are the favourite political bogeymen, supporting various conservative political causes. That they are also billionaires makes them easy targets for those willing to overlook the extent to which George Soros -- also a billionaire -- generously financing various left-wing causes.
It's no great secret that Cain's candidacy as a Republican was sure to trigger the deepest racial ethos of the far-left. No lesser a far-left whacko luminary than Janeane Garofalo would publicly surmise that Cain was being paid to run for President. Perhaps now she'll be emboldened to suggest that maybe, just maybe, it's the Koch brothers allegedly paying him.
Certainly, it's a hilariously stupid suggestion on its face. But Garofalo has been both a reliable and shameless source of this kind of commentary.
This is the kind of thing that one can expect to see now that the Koch brothers cat is out of the bag.
Of course, Cain's long association with AFP has never been a secret. In 2005-06, Cain was involved in the AFP's Prosperity Expansion Project, travelling the United States to speak to fledgling AFP chapters.
Any suggestion that the AFP was simply a front for corporate greed, or a stidently pro-Republican organization would be quickly swept aside that AFP opposed the automaker bailout administered by George W Bush.
Details, details.
For those among the American far-left who draw every breath obsessed with the Koch brothers, nothing so mundane as facts will be enough to allay their hysteria.
But in the end, that will likely be as much an asset to Herman Cain. Cain's fundamentally rational approach to economics will only appear more rational next to the crazed fantasy-based ideas set forth by those who will rave incessantly about Cain's remote connection to the Koch brothers via Americans For Prosperity.
In an era where politics is quickly becoming about sorting out rational people from the crazies, the reaction by the anti-Koch left will only solidify Herman Cain's standing in the former camp, and the anti-Koch left's standing in the latter.
Don't Circle the Wagons Now, Jimmy
In terms of online stupidity, Jim Parrot is the gift that just keeps on giving.
Apparently, Jymn has become so obsessed with the Occupation movement, that he renamed his blog Occupy Let Freedom Rain. (The detail that he already occupies it seems entirely lost on him.)
But in one of the most recent bouts between Jymn and unintentional hilarity, he's apparently taken deep umbrage with the efforts of a few conservative bloggers to draw attention to some anti-semitic behaviour among participants in the Occupation movement.
Some of that behaviour was captured on film by National Review Online.
If such undeniable evidence didn't exist, one could certainly assume that Jymn would simply claim there was no anti-semitism and move on. After all, he seems to be perfectly content to cling to his claims that "no violence was had" at the Dick Cheney protest in Vancouver, despite an assault on an employee of the venue at which Cheney was hosted.
Yet in a long and rambling post trying to explain the anti-Semitism away, Jymn simply recycles old discredited claims about the Tea Party, and even recycles the Tea Party's explanation for any racist behaviour at their rallies: that the racism came from a marginal minority. (Although he does indulge himself in pretending that the proportion of Tea Partiers indulging themselves in racism was much, much larger than it actually was.)
Midway through his incoherent ramblings, he seems to sense that he cannot actually explain the anti-semitism away, so he seems to decide to not even try:
That is rather remarkable, when one considers this previous bit of sanctimonious tripe from pre-Occupy Let Freedom Rain:
Yet when other adherents to the Occupation movement are caught publicly voicing their anti-Semitism, what does Jim Parrot do? Precisely what he claimed he would not: he circled the wagons.
No one should be particularly surprised: it's precisely what Jim Parrot and his cohorts have always done. There's no reason to expect that they would have done any differently, or that they ever will.
Apparently, Jymn has become so obsessed with the Occupation movement, that he renamed his blog Occupy Let Freedom Rain. (The detail that he already occupies it seems entirely lost on him.)
But in one of the most recent bouts between Jymn and unintentional hilarity, he's apparently taken deep umbrage with the efforts of a few conservative bloggers to draw attention to some anti-semitic behaviour among participants in the Occupation movement.
Some of that behaviour was captured on film by National Review Online.
If such undeniable evidence didn't exist, one could certainly assume that Jymn would simply claim there was no anti-semitism and move on. After all, he seems to be perfectly content to cling to his claims that "no violence was had" at the Dick Cheney protest in Vancouver, despite an assault on an employee of the venue at which Cheney was hosted.
Yet in a long and rambling post trying to explain the anti-Semitism away, Jymn simply recycles old discredited claims about the Tea Party, and even recycles the Tea Party's explanation for any racist behaviour at their rallies: that the racism came from a marginal minority. (Although he does indulge himself in pretending that the proportion of Tea Partiers indulging themselves in racism was much, much larger than it actually was.)
Midway through his incoherent ramblings, he seems to sense that he cannot actually explain the anti-semitism away, so he seems to decide to not even try:
"Should we be worried that anti-Semitism has popped up its ugly head amongst our message? Of course. It's deeply worrisome. That it would happen is not the problem - individual wackos turn up at every gathering, whether it is right or left.Did the rest of the Occupy Wall Street movement ask the anti-Semites to leave, as Tea Partiers have with racists who turned up at their rallies? He admits he doesn't actually know. But apparently that isn't even a salient concern for Jim Parrot, as he seems to think the bigger concern is that the media might actually pay closer attention to the anti-Semitism at many of these Occupy rallies.
The problem is that, and we don't know this, if we have not argued these exceptions to take down the signs, to take their hatred elsewhere. Perhaps that is what happened - we don't know. We just have right-wing publications - not the hallmark of honesty and fair play - to tell us their version. The bigger problem is that the media will sense blood and come prowling. This is going to get ugly."
That is rather remarkable, when one considers this previous bit of sanctimonious tripe from pre-Occupy Let Freedom Rain:
"I will not circle the wagons to protect my own when they are wrong. I am a blogger. I am not a journalist."Jim Parrot has very clearly taken the Occupation movement as his own. He's so enthralled with it that he's renamed his blog after it. (It's actually quite natural that someone with a tendency to repeat whatever he's told to say would take so keenly to a movement founded on repeating what other people say.)
Yet when other adherents to the Occupation movement are caught publicly voicing their anti-Semitism, what does Jim Parrot do? Precisely what he claimed he would not: he circled the wagons.
No one should be particularly surprised: it's precisely what Jim Parrot and his cohorts have always done. There's no reason to expect that they would have done any differently, or that they ever will.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
This Is Sure to Infuriate the Pro-Abortion Lobby
Rabble contributor admits abortion debate is alive, if not necessarily well
Rabble contributor Mercedes Allen is officially off the reservation.
Pro-abortion activists in Canada have long insisted that there is no debate on abortion in Canada -- your not-so-humble scribe was once threatened with gun violence for merely pointing out that there is. Many pro-abortion activists have long operated under a mistaken belief that, if they simply refused to discuss the abortion topic as an issue of ideas, that there was no debate.
Logical people would know better. And even if one disagrees with Allen on any number of different issues, one at least has to respect her acknowledgement of the ongoing debate.
It doesn't necessarily mean that she's happy about it.
Allen is apparently frustrated with parents who oppose the institution of extreme and provocative anti-discrimination education curriculum -- similar to that administered by the Toronto District School Board -- while some Catholic schools in Canada are giving students course credit for protesting against abortion, as is happening at Christ the King school in Winnipeg.
"According to the Winnipeg Free Press, students are being given full credits for doing so, and principal David Hood is considering making it an official school activity," Allen fumes. "Christ the King School is a private Catholic school in St. Vital, Manitoba providing instruction to students ranging from kindergarten to Grade 8. It's a funded independent school, which means that it receives 50 per cent of student tuition from the province."
"In Canada, there have been renewed efforts to eliminate all funding for International Planned Parenthood, even for women's health initiatives in countries where abortion is banned," she continues. "The United Way similarly came under fire for women's health support and some Canadian hairstylists reportedly participated in a campaign to discuss pro-life beliefs with customers. The Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform has been picketing schools of all levels across southern and central Alberta and BC with graphic signs."
"Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated during the election that he wasn't interested in reopening the debate about abortion," she concludes. "But he doesn't have to, and Canadians no longer have that luxury."
Precisely. There is still a debate on abortion, no matter how badly pro-abortion activists would prefer there isn't, no matter how vociferously they demand that it not take place.
This is increasingly going to be a problem for a movement that has convinced itself that it enjoys near-uniform support among Canadians, even as they applaud the jailing of their adversaries, as was the case when longtime anti-abortion activist Mary Wagner was jailed for counseling women against abortion too close to an abortion clinic.
“Despite numerous warnings from judges to stop breaking the law, she continues to do so,” remarked Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada coordinator Joyce Arthur. “Judges have little choice but to send people to jail when they do that. Wagner is apparently willing to pay the price, and so she should. Wagner needs to take responsibility for her actions and the harms she inflicts on women.”
Apparently, for Arthur, being confronted with the idea that the life they are about to terminate is human "inflicts harm on women."
If this were merely about keeping anti-abortion activists away from abortion clinics, it would be one thing. But Arthur's applause of the jailing of Wagner is unsurprising when one considers her long history of advocacy in favour of denying on-campus anti-abortion groups the same access to student resources as their pro-abortion adversaries.
In the sad history of pro-aboriton authoritarianism, Arthur has been its leading figure. If Mercedes Allen's admission that the abortion debate is active is going to provoke an angry outburst from the pro-abortion lobby, Joyce Arthur should be considered the leading candidate to freak out.
There's plenty of room to debate whether or not Catholic school students should be given course credit for anti-abortion protest (in this author's view, they absolutely should not).
But Mercedes Allen is entirely right: there is a debate on abortion taking place, regardless of how loudly pro-abortion authoritarians like Joyce Arthur demand that it not.
Rabble contributor Mercedes Allen is officially off the reservation.
Pro-abortion activists in Canada have long insisted that there is no debate on abortion in Canada -- your not-so-humble scribe was once threatened with gun violence for merely pointing out that there is. Many pro-abortion activists have long operated under a mistaken belief that, if they simply refused to discuss the abortion topic as an issue of ideas, that there was no debate.
Logical people would know better. And even if one disagrees with Allen on any number of different issues, one at least has to respect her acknowledgement of the ongoing debate.
It doesn't necessarily mean that she's happy about it.
Allen is apparently frustrated with parents who oppose the institution of extreme and provocative anti-discrimination education curriculum -- similar to that administered by the Toronto District School Board -- while some Catholic schools in Canada are giving students course credit for protesting against abortion, as is happening at Christ the King school in Winnipeg.
"According to the Winnipeg Free Press, students are being given full credits for doing so, and principal David Hood is considering making it an official school activity," Allen fumes. "Christ the King School is a private Catholic school in St. Vital, Manitoba providing instruction to students ranging from kindergarten to Grade 8. It's a funded independent school, which means that it receives 50 per cent of student tuition from the province."
"In Canada, there have been renewed efforts to eliminate all funding for International Planned Parenthood, even for women's health initiatives in countries where abortion is banned," she continues. "The United Way similarly came under fire for women's health support and some Canadian hairstylists reportedly participated in a campaign to discuss pro-life beliefs with customers. The Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform has been picketing schools of all levels across southern and central Alberta and BC with graphic signs."
"Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated during the election that he wasn't interested in reopening the debate about abortion," she concludes. "But he doesn't have to, and Canadians no longer have that luxury."
Precisely. There is still a debate on abortion, no matter how badly pro-abortion activists would prefer there isn't, no matter how vociferously they demand that it not take place.
This is increasingly going to be a problem for a movement that has convinced itself that it enjoys near-uniform support among Canadians, even as they applaud the jailing of their adversaries, as was the case when longtime anti-abortion activist Mary Wagner was jailed for counseling women against abortion too close to an abortion clinic.
“Despite numerous warnings from judges to stop breaking the law, she continues to do so,” remarked Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada coordinator Joyce Arthur. “Judges have little choice but to send people to jail when they do that. Wagner is apparently willing to pay the price, and so she should. Wagner needs to take responsibility for her actions and the harms she inflicts on women.”
Apparently, for Arthur, being confronted with the idea that the life they are about to terminate is human "inflicts harm on women."
If this were merely about keeping anti-abortion activists away from abortion clinics, it would be one thing. But Arthur's applause of the jailing of Wagner is unsurprising when one considers her long history of advocacy in favour of denying on-campus anti-abortion groups the same access to student resources as their pro-abortion adversaries.
In the sad history of pro-aboriton authoritarianism, Arthur has been its leading figure. If Mercedes Allen's admission that the abortion debate is active is going to provoke an angry outburst from the pro-abortion lobby, Joyce Arthur should be considered the leading candidate to freak out.
There's plenty of room to debate whether or not Catholic school students should be given course credit for anti-abortion protest (in this author's view, they absolutely should not).
But Mercedes Allen is entirely right: there is a debate on abortion taking place, regardless of how loudly pro-abortion authoritarians like Joyce Arthur demand that it not.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Right On CUPW, Fight On
CUPW right to challenge Tories over back-to-work law
Having a majority government shouldn't mean the right to always have your way, even when you're wrong.
It's something that the Jean Chretien government never learned -- especially with its Hepatitis C shenanigans -- but it's something that the Harper government clearly needs to learn.
Many conservatives would likely be shocked to be told that they should actually support the Canadian Union of Postal Workers in their bid to challenge the Tories' back-to-work legislation in court. They should take it as far as the Supreme Court if they have to.
"This back-to-work legislation was unjust," declared CUPW President Denis Lemelin. "It was the democratic rights of workers that were attacked. There is a fundamental principle here -- the freedom of association."
CUPW isn't right about many things, and certainly not very often. The political activities of the union executive and far-left hardliners -- so often taken in the name of the entire union -- are certainly a big problem for the responsible governance of that union. But that isn't what was at stake with the back-to-work legislation, and anyone who thinks it is has confused the issue entirely.
Many conservatives have mistaken labour unions for their natural enemy. This isn't actually the case.
The labour rights that have made it possible for blue-collar, working-class people in Canada to succeed on their own terms were the result of agitation by labour unions.
Admittedly this was a long time ago, when labour unions were focused entirely on improving the workplace conditions of their workers. Now, many labour unions -- including CUPW -- are more focused on advancing the personal political agendas of their leaders.
Perhaps some Conservatives have concluded that the solution to this is to simply crush the unions outright. This is a mistake.
In cases such as the CUPW back-to-work legislation, it's difficult to escape the conclusion that this is precisely what the Tories have set out to do. It's important to remember that CUPW was not under a general strike when the legislation was introduced, they were locked out by Canada Post.
There is something very wrong with a government that has the power to direct the executives of a crown corporation to end the lockout they imposed instead imposing back-to-work legislation to send postal workers back to the job.
When union leaders note that the government's actions undermine the position of all labour unions in Canada to bargain collectively, they are entirely right. That the government seems so eager to intervene in the Air Canada flight attendants' strike is even more alarming. Air Canada may have been founded as a crown corporation, but it was privatized in 1988.
It seems that there's no limit to how itchy the Harper government's trigger finger has become, and no limit on when and where it's prepared to legislate workers back to work.
CUPW needs to win this court challenge for the benefit of all Canadian workers who have reaped the benefit of responsible collective bargaining. And frankly, this is one time that the Harper government needs to be taught a lesson.
Having a majority government shouldn't mean the right to always have your way, even when you're wrong.
It's something that the Jean Chretien government never learned -- especially with its Hepatitis C shenanigans -- but it's something that the Harper government clearly needs to learn.
Many conservatives would likely be shocked to be told that they should actually support the Canadian Union of Postal Workers in their bid to challenge the Tories' back-to-work legislation in court. They should take it as far as the Supreme Court if they have to.
"This back-to-work legislation was unjust," declared CUPW President Denis Lemelin. "It was the democratic rights of workers that were attacked. There is a fundamental principle here -- the freedom of association."
CUPW isn't right about many things, and certainly not very often. The political activities of the union executive and far-left hardliners -- so often taken in the name of the entire union -- are certainly a big problem for the responsible governance of that union. But that isn't what was at stake with the back-to-work legislation, and anyone who thinks it is has confused the issue entirely.
Many conservatives have mistaken labour unions for their natural enemy. This isn't actually the case.
The labour rights that have made it possible for blue-collar, working-class people in Canada to succeed on their own terms were the result of agitation by labour unions.
Admittedly this was a long time ago, when labour unions were focused entirely on improving the workplace conditions of their workers. Now, many labour unions -- including CUPW -- are more focused on advancing the personal political agendas of their leaders.
Perhaps some Conservatives have concluded that the solution to this is to simply crush the unions outright. This is a mistake.
In cases such as the CUPW back-to-work legislation, it's difficult to escape the conclusion that this is precisely what the Tories have set out to do. It's important to remember that CUPW was not under a general strike when the legislation was introduced, they were locked out by Canada Post.
There is something very wrong with a government that has the power to direct the executives of a crown corporation to end the lockout they imposed instead imposing back-to-work legislation to send postal workers back to the job.
When union leaders note that the government's actions undermine the position of all labour unions in Canada to bargain collectively, they are entirely right. That the government seems so eager to intervene in the Air Canada flight attendants' strike is even more alarming. Air Canada may have been founded as a crown corporation, but it was privatized in 1988.
It seems that there's no limit to how itchy the Harper government's trigger finger has become, and no limit on when and where it's prepared to legislate workers back to work.
CUPW needs to win this court challenge for the benefit of all Canadian workers who have reaped the benefit of responsible collective bargaining. And frankly, this is one time that the Harper government needs to be taught a lesson.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Mirror, Mirror
Occupy Wall Street not a perfect facsimile of the Tea Party, but something of a warped reflection
In many ways, Occupy Wall Street is starting to look more -- and less -- like the Tea Party. And apparently, the Tea Party doesn't like it.
According to Tea Party Patriots founders Jenny Beth Martin and Mark Meckler, the two movements couldn't possibly be less alike.
"Tea Partiers don’t believe corporations are inherently evil, nor should bankers be beheaded," they wrote in a statement. "They do not believe this country should be divided by class, but united in a return to the principles that undergird our nation’s success. In fact, they want more of what made America great: more Constitutional restraint on government so that the people have more freedom to achieve the good things the country offers."
“By contrast, those occupying Wall Street and other cities, when they are intelligible, want less of what made America great and more of what is damaging to America: a bigger, more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don’t have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills,” they continue.
There are a lot of differences between the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. There's no questioning that.
For example, more than 2/3 of Occupiers are non-voters. Comparatively, Tea Partiers are overwhelmingly voters.
Considering that one of the common grievances each movement shares is that the political system doesn't work for them, at least one thing can be said for the Tea Party: they, at least, try.
Another obvious key difference is that the Tea Party is overwhelmingly law-abiding. Occupy Wall Street has had some trouble staying on that side of the law, and may have further trouble yet, as they plan to march on the homes of Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers.
Yet each has draped themselves in the garb of a revolutionary movement. The Tea Party traced its animus back to the American Revolution. Occupy Wall Street seems to be inspired by the labour unrest of the Great Depression era.
Both movements demand that American politics shift away from its soul-crushing status quo toward what they consider the founding principles of the United States. In the case of the Tea Party, they look to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. In the case of Occupy Wall Street, they very clearly look to the New Deal, and hope to expand it far beyond the imagination of all but the most fervent tax-and-spend Democrat.
It's certain that many Occupiers feel just as strongly as Jenny Beth Martin and Mark Meckler about the comparisons between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party.
Just as with so many rivals, the real reason Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party dislike each other is because they are so much alike.
In many ways, Occupy Wall Street is starting to look more -- and less -- like the Tea Party. And apparently, the Tea Party doesn't like it.
According to Tea Party Patriots founders Jenny Beth Martin and Mark Meckler, the two movements couldn't possibly be less alike.
"Tea Partiers don’t believe corporations are inherently evil, nor should bankers be beheaded," they wrote in a statement. "They do not believe this country should be divided by class, but united in a return to the principles that undergird our nation’s success. In fact, they want more of what made America great: more Constitutional restraint on government so that the people have more freedom to achieve the good things the country offers."
“By contrast, those occupying Wall Street and other cities, when they are intelligible, want less of what made America great and more of what is damaging to America: a bigger, more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don’t have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills,” they continue.
There are a lot of differences between the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. There's no questioning that.
For example, more than 2/3 of Occupiers are non-voters. Comparatively, Tea Partiers are overwhelmingly voters.
Considering that one of the common grievances each movement shares is that the political system doesn't work for them, at least one thing can be said for the Tea Party: they, at least, try.
Another obvious key difference is that the Tea Party is overwhelmingly law-abiding. Occupy Wall Street has had some trouble staying on that side of the law, and may have further trouble yet, as they plan to march on the homes of Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers.
Yet each has draped themselves in the garb of a revolutionary movement. The Tea Party traced its animus back to the American Revolution. Occupy Wall Street seems to be inspired by the labour unrest of the Great Depression era.
Both movements demand that American politics shift away from its soul-crushing status quo toward what they consider the founding principles of the United States. In the case of the Tea Party, they look to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. In the case of Occupy Wall Street, they very clearly look to the New Deal, and hope to expand it far beyond the imagination of all but the most fervent tax-and-spend Democrat.
It's certain that many Occupiers feel just as strongly as Jenny Beth Martin and Mark Meckler about the comparisons between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party.
Just as with so many rivals, the real reason Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party dislike each other is because they are so much alike.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Chauncey DeVega Triples Down on Stupid
Race-obsessed writer obsesses over... who else? Herman Cain
There's something unique about the racism issue in the minds of the far-left. It's especially unique when one considers the case of far-leftists who are also minorities.
Simply put: racism never applies to them. They cannot be racist, even when they are being racist, when the target of that racism is someone who disagrees with them politically.
Ergo, the unique place Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain occupies in the mind of the far left. Even though he is an African American, he is also a conservative. Ergo, he cannot be a victim of racism because he isn't "really" an African-American. Ergo, they can direct all their racial hostilities at him to their heart's delight.
Case in point: Alternet writer Chauncey DeVega. Earlier in 2011, DeVega dabbled in black-on-black racism when he suggested Cain was simply a "ministrel act" for CPAC. And while an intellectually honest writer -- at least one being intellectually honest with himself -- might stop to question his own motivations after a feat like that, DeVega instead appealed his sense of entitlement to the political loyalties of everyone whose skin is so much as a shade darker than beige. (People like DeVega also believe they're entitled to the political loyalties of women and the LGBT community.)
So on the heels of Janeane Garofalo's self-humilation in first claiming that the conservative movement was paying Cain to run for President, and later claiming that they only supported him as a "racism shield", DeVega has taken it upon himself to investigate these issues a little further.
In a recent Alternet blogpost, DeVega explores some white supremacist websites, all the while asking himself: "what are the white supremacists saying about Herman Cain?"
Literally. It's the title of his blogpost.
Of course, rational people know the answer to that question. The answer, of course, being "who cares?"
Apparently, DeVega cares. He cares more than he actually cares about what Cain thnks, or why.
Think the irony of this over for just a few seconds. That's all it takes. Consider it: a far-left, race-obsessed, race-baiting crusader for black people who cares more about what a white supremacist thinks than what an actual, living, breathing, black man thinks -- so long as the aforementioned black man is a conservative.
It's the only thing remarkable about DeVega's screed. That, and the unique patience to actually read what a white supremacist thinks, giving a shit all the while.
Of course, it isn't that DeVega is at all disinterested in what Herman Cain thinks, or why. The problem is that DeVega cares what Cain thinks only enough to be outraged about it, outraged at the utter gall of another black man to have a differing opinion.
If Chauncey DeVega wrote for a publication that deserves to be taken seriously, it would be one thing. Alas, DeVega has shown, through AlterNet's bizarre patience for his bizarre screeds, that AlterNet has abandoned the unique reporting that put it on the journalistic map, and abandoned the journalistic standards that would otherwise keep black-on-black racism off of its webpages.
There's something unique about the racism issue in the minds of the far-left. It's especially unique when one considers the case of far-leftists who are also minorities.
Simply put: racism never applies to them. They cannot be racist, even when they are being racist, when the target of that racism is someone who disagrees with them politically.
Ergo, the unique place Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain occupies in the mind of the far left. Even though he is an African American, he is also a conservative. Ergo, he cannot be a victim of racism because he isn't "really" an African-American. Ergo, they can direct all their racial hostilities at him to their heart's delight.
Case in point: Alternet writer Chauncey DeVega. Earlier in 2011, DeVega dabbled in black-on-black racism when he suggested Cain was simply a "ministrel act" for CPAC. And while an intellectually honest writer -- at least one being intellectually honest with himself -- might stop to question his own motivations after a feat like that, DeVega instead appealed his sense of entitlement to the political loyalties of everyone whose skin is so much as a shade darker than beige. (People like DeVega also believe they're entitled to the political loyalties of women and the LGBT community.)
So on the heels of Janeane Garofalo's self-humilation in first claiming that the conservative movement was paying Cain to run for President, and later claiming that they only supported him as a "racism shield", DeVega has taken it upon himself to investigate these issues a little further.
In a recent Alternet blogpost, DeVega explores some white supremacist websites, all the while asking himself: "what are the white supremacists saying about Herman Cain?"
Literally. It's the title of his blogpost.
Of course, rational people know the answer to that question. The answer, of course, being "who cares?"
Apparently, DeVega cares. He cares more than he actually cares about what Cain thnks, or why.
Think the irony of this over for just a few seconds. That's all it takes. Consider it: a far-left, race-obsessed, race-baiting crusader for black people who cares more about what a white supremacist thinks than what an actual, living, breathing, black man thinks -- so long as the aforementioned black man is a conservative.
It's the only thing remarkable about DeVega's screed. That, and the unique patience to actually read what a white supremacist thinks, giving a shit all the while.
Of course, it isn't that DeVega is at all disinterested in what Herman Cain thinks, or why. The problem is that DeVega cares what Cain thinks only enough to be outraged about it, outraged at the utter gall of another black man to have a differing opinion.
If Chauncey DeVega wrote for a publication that deserves to be taken seriously, it would be one thing. Alas, DeVega has shown, through AlterNet's bizarre patience for his bizarre screeds, that AlterNet has abandoned the unique reporting that put it on the journalistic map, and abandoned the journalistic standards that would otherwise keep black-on-black racism off of its webpages.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Taking Something Away From the Man
Real Steel is the tale of Charlie Kenton (Hugh Jackman), a washed-up boxer in over his head in the world of robot boxing.
Fuelled by the demand to watch two participants entirely obliterate each other to the death, robot boxing has seen automatons replace human fighters. Think of it as Bloodsport as waged by droids.
Kenton's life is that of mounting defeats and ever-increasing debt until he swings a shady deal for custody of his son Max (Dakota Goyo) with the boy's wealthy uncle. Max eventually helps Charlie stage a whirlwind comeback to a championship match with the robot boxing world champion, a robot by the name of Zeus.
In the world of Real Steel, human boxers no longer compete. Outpaced by the rise of Mixed Martial Arts and eventually cast aside entirely in favour of robots, the risk once accepted by human fighters is now shunted onto these robots.
In a perfect world, something like that would be great... for everyone but the fighters themselves.
People who frequently watch science fiction films have probably seen Star Trek: Insurrection, wherein the crew of the USS Enterprise travel to a planet populated by the Ba'Ku. They are believed to be a primitive society who has never developed the technology necessary to travel through space, but in actuality are an advanced society that has chosen to live in nearly Ahmish fashion.
One of the Ba'Ku, Sojef (Daniel Hugh Kelly), tells the crew that "we believe that when you make a machine to do the work of a man, you take something away from the man."
There is something to be said for this. But when applied to basic, day-to-day, menial tasks, that is one thing. When applied to longer-term pursuits, it's entirely another.
In Real Steel, robot boxers such as Atom, Zeus and Midas are controlled by humans, but the operators are reduced to the level of software. They operate the fighter, but never themselves fight. Theoretically, they experience all the thrill of fighting without ever actually having to take a punch.
But unlike with human righters, the operator is entirely interchangable. The operator may be able to pilot their fighter to victory, but never really win themselves. They may pilot their fighter to a championship, but never really become the champion.
The operators are at very little risk. As the film shows -- although it doesn't depict a Robot Jox-esque disaster (or, for that matter, a Reno Airraces-esque disaster) -- the operators and their spectators do face the risk of being injured by flying debris.
But they aren't at risk of being harmed by another fighter. They never have to take the punch, they never have to be knocked out. They'll never experience a concussion, never be afflicted by post-concussion syndrome.
Which is nice. But is it worth surrendering the opportunity to enjoy their successes for themselves, in their own name?
Those who would gleefully ban boxing, MMA fighting, air racing, or any other hazardous sport in favour of some kind of remote-controlled alternative would almost certainly believe it is.
As the example of Charlie Kenton suggests, the competitors themselves probably wouldn't be so keen. And while the film predictably concludes with Kenton celebrating having led his robot to a triumph of sorts, it's fair to speculate on whether his satisfaction would last, or if it would be eclipsed by the opportunity to step into the ring and win a championship with his own fists.
If humanity starts building machines to pursue human excellence, people like Charlie Kenton would be denied the opportunity to achieve it for themselves.
Humans denied the opportunity to pursue human excellence: it's as chilling an idea in a fictional world as it is in the real world.
Sunday, October 09, 2011
The NDP Gives Democracy a A Great Big Orange Middle Finger
NDP's stance on extra seats for growing provinces anti-democratic
The NDP must think that Canadians in Alberta, Ontario and BC aren't just aren't paying attention.
That's the only explanation for their position opposing the addition of new Parliamentary seats for Alberta, BC and Ontario. These provinces have long been underrepresented in Parliament, and the rapid growth of the population of these provinces only ensures that it will get worse if it isn't addressed.
Fortunately, Democratic Reform Minister Tim Uppal is prepared to move to alleviate this issue.
"Currently, Canadians in the fastest-growing provinces are severely underrepresented," Uppal explained. "We believe that every Canadian vote, to the greatest extent possible, should carry equal weight."
David Christopherson, the NDP's Democratic Renewal critic, has vowed that the NDP will fight the re-distribution tooth and nail. And therein lies the evidence that the NDP thinks Canadians aren't paying attention.
In August, NDP interim leader Nycole Turmel even had the nerve to describe the proposed new seats as "divisive".
"The approach of the Harper government is really divisive right now. It's not constructive, it's not nation-building," Turmel insisted.
Of course any Canadian with even the remotest grip on reality know precisely what this statement is:
A lie.
It's the NDP who are trying to divide Canadians over the addition of more seats to Parliament, and it's unfortunate they don't respect Canadians enough to tell the truth about it.
It's the NDP who are looking to voters in BC, Alberta and Ontario and telling them they aren't good enough to have the same electoral weight as voters in Quebec. It's the NDP who are looking to these voters and telling them they must remain second-class citizens in Canada.
Fortunately, voters in Alberta, BC and Ontario are paying attention to this issue. And what do they see? They see the Conservative Party sanding up for their right to equal representation, and they see the NDP opposing it.
It's not a hard conclusion to reach: if you live in Ontario, BC or Alberta, the NDP is not on your side. They are against you.
The NDP must think that Canadians in Alberta, Ontario and BC aren't just aren't paying attention.
That's the only explanation for their position opposing the addition of new Parliamentary seats for Alberta, BC and Ontario. These provinces have long been underrepresented in Parliament, and the rapid growth of the population of these provinces only ensures that it will get worse if it isn't addressed.
Fortunately, Democratic Reform Minister Tim Uppal is prepared to move to alleviate this issue.
"Currently, Canadians in the fastest-growing provinces are severely underrepresented," Uppal explained. "We believe that every Canadian vote, to the greatest extent possible, should carry equal weight."
David Christopherson, the NDP's Democratic Renewal critic, has vowed that the NDP will fight the re-distribution tooth and nail. And therein lies the evidence that the NDP thinks Canadians aren't paying attention.
In August, NDP interim leader Nycole Turmel even had the nerve to describe the proposed new seats as "divisive".
"The approach of the Harper government is really divisive right now. It's not constructive, it's not nation-building," Turmel insisted.
Of course any Canadian with even the remotest grip on reality know precisely what this statement is:
A lie.
It's the NDP who are trying to divide Canadians over the addition of more seats to Parliament, and it's unfortunate they don't respect Canadians enough to tell the truth about it.
It's the NDP who are looking to voters in BC, Alberta and Ontario and telling them they aren't good enough to have the same electoral weight as voters in Quebec. It's the NDP who are looking to these voters and telling them they must remain second-class citizens in Canada.
Fortunately, voters in Alberta, BC and Ontario are paying attention to this issue. And what do they see? They see the Conservative Party sanding up for their right to equal representation, and they see the NDP opposing it.
It's not a hard conclusion to reach: if you live in Ontario, BC or Alberta, the NDP is not on your side. They are against you.
Occupy Wall Street? More Like Resistance is Futile
Sheer weirdness is a quality that has long permeated many far-left protest movements. But Occupy Atlanta takes the cake.
While the entire occupation movement has prided itself on claiming to be free-thinking individuals standing against a system that does not work for them -- although the detail that most of them are non-voters indicates that, in typical lazy-leftist fashion, they haven't even tried -- the groupthink aspect of the movement has become unignorable.
The case in point is an attempt by Congressman John Lewis (Democrat) to speak before the Occupy Atlanta General Assembly.
Lewis is widely known as a civil rights hero, and with good reason. But apparently that doesn't impress the weirdos at Occupy Atlanta, who instead of listening to Lewis speak, instead insisted on repeating after every single word spoken.
The emerging elements of Stalinism emerging from under the riptides of the occupation movement only becomes more frightening when one considers that the alleged free-thinking members of the occupation movement, at the very least in Atlanta, are proving to be nothing more than sheeple.
They've become their very own real-life Borg Collective. Almost quite literally.
Of course, those familiar with the Sci-Fi-Mythical Borg know full well that there is absolutely no freedom within such a collective, and whether one surrenders their freedom willingly or if it is taken from them by force seems entirely irrelevant.
It's becoming crystal clear: the "new America" Occupy Wall Street imagines is one in which people think in an increasingly uniform fashion, literally dictated them to the vanguard-esque demagogues who are more interested in obstructing the speech of people like John Lewis than in what they actually have to say.
Occupy Wall Street seems to be coming to think that resistance is futile. But they're in for a shock. despite their self-aggrandizing claims to represent "the 99%", Occupy Wall Street would be lucky to represent as much as 9% of American society, and the other at least 91% aren't going to put up with this kind of stupidity if they decide to try to impose it by force.
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Ontario's Left & the Bully Pulpit of Unlimited Spending
Campaign finance law needs to reign in labour unions
Canada's elections law essentially allow ganging-up by anyone willing to establish a third-party campaign.
It's no secret. The 2011 federal election was a splendid example of an attempt to do this, as dozens of far-left campaigns sprung up, eager to defeat the governing Conservative Party through the organization of strategic voting and, in some cases, outright lies.
So long as registered third-party campaigns are willing to stick the truth, they for the most part present no great dilemma for campaign finance law. At least not at the federal level.
At the provincial level, however, particularly in Ontario, it seems that there is a problem. A big one.
In Ontario, it seems that third-party campaigns face no spending limits, allowing some third-party campaigns to essentially gang up and bully the provincial Progressive Conservative Party, who are subject to spending limits and cannot effectively defend themselves.
The Working Families Coalition is the most publicly-known example. It claims to be independent of the Liberal Party, but was in fact directly organized by the Liberals. Another example that comes to mind is the "No Gun, No Funeral" campaign organized and operated out of then-Attorney General Michael Bryant's campaign offices.
In each case, Elections Ontario opted to ignore the undeniable connections between these organizations and the Ontario Liberal Party and treat them as an independent third-party. What had actually happened is that these groups allowed the Liberal Party of Ontario to breach campaign spending limits.
It's evidence that Elections Ontario is just as ill as Elections Canada, and needs the same overhaul of the people running the institution.
“The rule is too loose. We need the teeth of the federal rules if we’re to keep elections from being swayed,” remarked York University political science professor Robert MacDermid. He recently produced a report that demonstrates just how badly organizations like Labour Unions have abused the system in their bids to help out their partisan allies. (In the case of public service unions, this amounted to picking their own bosses.)
“The possibility of corruption is so much less,” MacDermid says of the federal campaign finance laws.
It's worth noting that the Coaliton for a Better Ontario came out on the side of the then-Mike Harris led Tories in 1999. Any connection between that organization and the Ontario Tories is unknown to this author, but just as troublesome if they existed.
MacDermid suggests the provincial Tories wouldn't complain if such a group were helping them, and he's likely right.
For Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty's part, however, he's naturally pleased with the current status quo.
“We’ve got a great system here,” McGuinty remarked. “There are so many different avenues for people to give expression to their opinion. I believe in a strong collision of ideas.”
Unfortunately for McGuinty, that isn't what's happening right now, and he knows it full well. What is currently taking place is that his party has organized an environment in which they and the third-party campaigns they themselves organized can gang up on the PCs, whose own hands are tied.
Under the watch of the Dalton McGuinty Liberals, Ontario's lax rules on third-party campaigning have become a bully pulpit from which they can unfairly dominate their opponents. It needs to be stopped at the earliest opportunity.
Canada's elections law essentially allow ganging-up by anyone willing to establish a third-party campaign.
It's no secret. The 2011 federal election was a splendid example of an attempt to do this, as dozens of far-left campaigns sprung up, eager to defeat the governing Conservative Party through the organization of strategic voting and, in some cases, outright lies.
So long as registered third-party campaigns are willing to stick the truth, they for the most part present no great dilemma for campaign finance law. At least not at the federal level.
At the provincial level, however, particularly in Ontario, it seems that there is a problem. A big one.
In Ontario, it seems that third-party campaigns face no spending limits, allowing some third-party campaigns to essentially gang up and bully the provincial Progressive Conservative Party, who are subject to spending limits and cannot effectively defend themselves.
The Working Families Coalition is the most publicly-known example. It claims to be independent of the Liberal Party, but was in fact directly organized by the Liberals. Another example that comes to mind is the "No Gun, No Funeral" campaign organized and operated out of then-Attorney General Michael Bryant's campaign offices.
In each case, Elections Ontario opted to ignore the undeniable connections between these organizations and the Ontario Liberal Party and treat them as an independent third-party. What had actually happened is that these groups allowed the Liberal Party of Ontario to breach campaign spending limits.
It's evidence that Elections Ontario is just as ill as Elections Canada, and needs the same overhaul of the people running the institution.
“The rule is too loose. We need the teeth of the federal rules if we’re to keep elections from being swayed,” remarked York University political science professor Robert MacDermid. He recently produced a report that demonstrates just how badly organizations like Labour Unions have abused the system in their bids to help out their partisan allies. (In the case of public service unions, this amounted to picking their own bosses.)
“The possibility of corruption is so much less,” MacDermid says of the federal campaign finance laws.
It's worth noting that the Coaliton for a Better Ontario came out on the side of the then-Mike Harris led Tories in 1999. Any connection between that organization and the Ontario Tories is unknown to this author, but just as troublesome if they existed.
MacDermid suggests the provincial Tories wouldn't complain if such a group were helping them, and he's likely right.
For Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty's part, however, he's naturally pleased with the current status quo.
“We’ve got a great system here,” McGuinty remarked. “There are so many different avenues for people to give expression to their opinion. I believe in a strong collision of ideas.”
Unfortunately for McGuinty, that isn't what's happening right now, and he knows it full well. What is currently taking place is that his party has organized an environment in which they and the third-party campaigns they themselves organized can gang up on the PCs, whose own hands are tied.
Under the watch of the Dalton McGuinty Liberals, Ontario's lax rules on third-party campaigning have become a bully pulpit from which they can unfairly dominate their opponents. It needs to be stopped at the earliest opportunity.
What Is Occupy Wall Street? Exactly?
Occupy Wall Street more left-wing Tea Party than Arab Spring
Writing in an op/ed for National Review Online, Jonah Goldberg turns his attention to a persistent movement that cannot be ignored: the self-styled Occupy Wall Street movement.
Goldberg seems to enjoy the naive precociousness of the movement. There's little question about that.
But Goldberg seems to nearly overlook what, at this point, is the most important question of all: what, precisely, is Occupy Wall Street? It's not as ridiculous a question as it may seem. They haven't really been clear.
Likewise with the Occupy Wall Street activists. They are at positively no risk of even a sideways glance from law enforcement until they do something stupid like attempt to block the Brooklyn Bridge.
So, no. Occupy Wall Street is not the Arab Spring. Nor do they truly represent 99% of anyone, let alone Americans. As Goldberg muses -- and he is absolutely correct -- the very notion is utterly comical.
If anything, Occupy Wall Street is the left-wing Tea Party.
They'll certainly refuse to admit it. They'll even feign indignant outrage at the very suggestion. But it's true, and the conclusion is unavoidable.
Like the Tea Party movement, Occupy Wall Street will learn how difficult it is to produce a coherent message from so many divergent ideas. They'll learn how easy it is to be typecast by the most extreme among them; although many would likely find that the average extremism index -- if there were such a thing -- would be sky-high in the Wall Street Occupation movement compared to the average member of the Tea Party.
And while the mainstream media won't be as willingly complicit in the demonization of Occupy Wall Street, they will eventually learn what it is to be demonized. Some of them will deserve it; many of them will not. Unfortunately, that demonization has become an occupational hazard for grassroots movements in the US.
Just ask the Tea Party.
Writing in an op/ed for National Review Online, Jonah Goldberg turns his attention to a persistent movement that cannot be ignored: the self-styled Occupy Wall Street movement.
Goldberg seems to enjoy the naive precociousness of the movement. There's little question about that.
But Goldberg seems to nearly overlook what, at this point, is the most important question of all: what, precisely, is Occupy Wall Street? It's not as ridiculous a question as it may seem. They haven't really been clear.
"I don’t think this thing has nearly the legs its boosters do. For starters, for all the talk about this being the US version of the Arab Spring (a disgusting, and idiotic, anti-American slander by the way), at least the Arabs were smart enough to start the Arab Spring in the Spring! These bozos chose the fall which means it’s only going to get colder. No doubt some will hold out in their urban yurts for as long as it takes, but that self-anointed avant garde of the campus proletariat is going to get lonely when it starts to snow (of course they could all migrate south for the winter)."The "Arab Spring" notion is a vain idea shared by many far-left protesters with delusions of persecution. Canadian human bobblehead Brigette DePape has taken a certain pleasure in being compared to Arab Spring activists, neglecting to consider the fact that she was at no threat of violence, unlike Libyan activists who were at risk of airstrikes.
Likewise with the Occupy Wall Street activists. They are at positively no risk of even a sideways glance from law enforcement until they do something stupid like attempt to block the Brooklyn Bridge.
So, no. Occupy Wall Street is not the Arab Spring. Nor do they truly represent 99% of anyone, let alone Americans. As Goldberg muses -- and he is absolutely correct -- the very notion is utterly comical.
If anything, Occupy Wall Street is the left-wing Tea Party.
They'll certainly refuse to admit it. They'll even feign indignant outrage at the very suggestion. But it's true, and the conclusion is unavoidable.
Like the Tea Party movement, Occupy Wall Street will learn how difficult it is to produce a coherent message from so many divergent ideas. They'll learn how easy it is to be typecast by the most extreme among them; although many would likely find that the average extremism index -- if there were such a thing -- would be sky-high in the Wall Street Occupation movement compared to the average member of the Tea Party.
And while the mainstream media won't be as willingly complicit in the demonization of Occupy Wall Street, they will eventually learn what it is to be demonized. Some of them will deserve it; many of them will not. Unfortunately, that demonization has become an occupational hazard for grassroots movements in the US.
Just ask the Tea Party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)