The longer the Occupy movement -- spawned by Occupy Wall Street, and imitated and co-opted by now-countless others -- goes on, the more necessary the comparisons between it and the Tea Party become.
It's on this note that the Occupy movement has now reached two key milestones that were used by far-left antagonists to condemn the Tea Party.
The first is the participation in an Arizona Occupation rally of JT Ready, an infamous Arizona neo-Nazi. He brought his militia, the Arizona Border Guard, to Occupy Phoenix rally. More frighteningly, they came armed with AR-15 assault rifles.
Desperate to mitigate the damage, some contemporaries of the Occupy movement attempted to describe Ready's participation as a "counter-protest". Ready himself, as well as the Arizona Border Guard made themselves clear: they were there to -- in their words -- "use their second-amendment rights to protect the first-amendment rights of Occupy Phoenix".
Once one has it directly from the horse's mouth, one quickly becomes relieved that most of the participants at the Occupy Phoenix rally asked Ready and his militia to leave. Some, however, attempted to "reach out" to Ready, feeling a sense of socialist-to-socialist solidarity with Ready.
One elderly woman present was reported to have remarked "I kind of like socialism."
Okay then.
The other incident also involves an armed individual, but fortunately does not involve Nazis. A man was spotted at Occupy Atlanta with an AK-47 assault rifle, which prompted the city to order to crowd to disperse.
Some may remember the infamy of racebaitgate, in which MSNBC selectively edited footage from a Phoenix Tea Party event in order to portray a black man with an AR-15 assault rifle as a white man bent on assassinating the President for racial reasons.
(Contessa Brewer has since been dismissed from MSNBC. Dylan Ratigan, sadly, remains.)
Some may also remember a ThinkProgress video which fabricated evidence of Tea Party racism. Among them was a man proudly extolling his devotion to Nazism.
When the source video was identified, it was revealed that the video was actually of this man being chased out of a Tea Party rally. Think Progress shamelessly stood by the video despite the extent to which it was discredited.
Now, no one should expect Occupy Phoenix to physically chase armed militiamen away from their rally. The reasons are obvious.
But the mixture of armed individuals and a movement that promises to occupy public space over the long-term -- permanently, if need be -- is an alarming development, and should be alarming even to the most devoted Occupation enthusiasts.
Simply put, what started out as a laudably-peaceful protest is now taking on the vestiges of an actual armed occupation.
This is where the input of the aforementioned Occupation enthusiasts becomes so necessary.
Jim Parrot -- who by now needs no further introduction around these parts -- is as dedicated an Occupation enthusiast as they come. He even renamed his blog "Occupy Let Freedom Rain" at one point, likely until he finally realized he had always occupied that space.
He also previously promised that he won't circle the wagons to protect his own when they are wrong.
Having so deeply embraced the Occupation movement, he has made it his own. Perhaps he'll have something to say about this.
His previous forays into not circling the wagons were less than successful. But perhaps he'll do better this time.
Maybe. Just maybe.
Showing posts with label Intellectual cowardice - Jim Parrot. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Intellectual cowardice - Jim Parrot. Show all posts
Monday, October 31, 2011
Monday, October 17, 2011
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.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
"No Violence Was Had", He Says
Over the past few days, it's become increasingly difficult not to pick on Jim Parrot. Your not-so-humble author is trying, but Parrot is begging on the thunder.
Over the past few days, Parrot has been giddily obsessive over the recent visit to Vancouver by Dick Cheney. Speaking at the Vancouver Club, Cheney attracted the usual -- and in this author's honest opinion, not-entirely-unjustifiable -- outrage from Canada's left. 250 people showed up to demand his arrest.
Jim Parrot was one of them. This would be largely innocuous if not for a rather intriguing passage in blog post about it:
"No violence was had, although one middle-aged woman guest with a 50's perm that could cut glass got her purse caught in a camera as she wormed through the crowd. She yanked the purse with a violence that could only come from fear. She took a wayward swing at the poor camera guy. That was all I saw."As it turns out, this comment is flagrantly false. Stunningly false.
Local 9/11 "truth"er Darren Pearson, at some point during the inevitable frenzy, saw fit to seize a Vancouver Club employee around the neck and throttle him.
Not so much as a mention of the assault -- immortalized in the form of photo evidence -- at Let Freedom Rain.
For his own part, Darren Pearson feels absolutely no shame for his assault on the unnamed Vancouver Club employee, who reportedly suffered minor injuries. In fact, Pearson has publicly stated that it was "fun" for him.
At a time like this one would even see fit to question the tenor of the pre-speech coverage at LFR, and ask whether it's fair to take a page out of the left's play book and ask if Jim Parrot himself had any hand in encouraging the assault. a blog post originally entitled "Leah Costello is cancer on Vancouver" (the title was since changed). Looking at how liberally Parrot has proven to be willing to spread the blame for "words of hate", it seems to his own standard bill. Other mentions of the Vancouver Club on LFR are too vile to be reproduced here -- which is really saying something.
At best, Jim Parrot needs to account for his claims there were no violence when some of those present saw fit to assail not club manager Leah Costello, not Dick Cheney, but club staff.
At worst, Jim Parrot should apply his own rhetorical habits to himself and ask if he could be blamed for encouraging the violence.
Given past dealigns with the Let Freedom Rain proprietor, one should expect neither.
Although, credit where credit is due -- Jim Parrot is right about one thing: the banana-throwing incident involving Wayne Simmonds isn't just "a lapse in judgment", it seems inconceivable to consider it anything but pre-medidated, especially when one considers the typical shortage of fresh produce at hockey games.
And it's entirely justifiable to be outraged over a homophobic remark directed at Sean Avery... but let's not forget Avery's own foray into on-ice racism.
Oilers fans -- and especially Georges Larague -- won't forget anytime soon.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Stupid People Shouldn't Play Hockey Historian
There's something about Jymn Parrett -- known around these parts as Jim Parrot for his tendency to mindlessly repeat any line of bullshit a far-left demagogue instructs him to -- and hockey that seems to send his under-sized, under-powered mental locomotive off the tracks.
As was shown during the Vancouver Canucks 2011 Stanley Cup run -- which ended in disappointment for all Canadians, on far too many levels -- a bizarre obsession lies in Jim Parrot's psyche to politicize the game in all sorts of ways that don't reflect the reality of it.
For example, in the mind of this deranged individual, the horrifying story about Philadelphia Flyers forward Wayne Simmonds having a banana thrown at him in London, ON has become an opportunity to blame Prime Minister Stephen Harper for some alleged resurgence of racism in Canada.
Those who have paid close attention to race issues in Canada for what they are, as opposed to what they wish it would be know better. All proper-thinking Canadians wish racism was a thing of the past in Canada. But we know it is not.
Racism has never really gone away in Canada, as much as we wish it would. It seems worthy of note that the race indcident that most readily comes to mind during the 2011 federal election, in which Harper won a majority government, involved not a Conservative candidate, but a Bloc Quebecois candidate who declared that Quebeckers would note vote for Romeo Saganash because he's Cree.
Let's not for get that the Bloc Quebecois was essential to the power-grabbing coalition of socialists and separatists that people like Jim Parrot so readily favoured in 2008.
Parrot's logic is hardly befitting the word. It proceeds something like this: Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada. A racist incident occurred in London, Ontario. Ergo, Harper must be to blame.
Parrot pretends to be deeply concerned about this incident -- and perhaps truly is, even if he isn't at all legitimately concerned with the issues intrinsic to it. But can't even keep his hockey history straight.
He treats Boston Bruins forward Willie O'Ree as the pioneer for black players in hockey. This assessment is actually incorrect.
O'Ree played a total of 45 games in the NHL for the Boston Bruins -- not bad for the first black player to ever do so. But those fully familair with hockey history know of another man... a man by the name of Herb Carnegie.
Carnegie began his professional career in 1938, while O'Ree was but three years old.
In 1948 Carnegie was invited for a tryout with the New York Rangers. Although he was widely regarded as one of the best players in the camp, fit to crack the Rangers starting lineup, he was instead offered a contract to play with the Rangers' minor league affiliate. The contract was worth less than he was earning playing for the Quebec Aces.
Among his teammates with the Aces was none other than Jean Bealiveau, who would later remark that Carnegie was one of the best players he had ever played with. Considering Bealiveau played with legends such as Maurice "The Rocket" Richard, this is high praise indeed.
Msny believe that if Carnegie had accepted the contract offered to him by the Rangers that he would have played in the NHL long before Willie O'Ree. Unlike O'Ree, whose NHL output totalled 14 points, he also would have excelled.
But Carnegie should always be admired for one thing: he knew that his self-respect and dignity were worth more than the possibility of one day, maybe, playing in the NHL after prostrating himself in order to have done it.
Hearing Carnegie talk about it today, he is still clearly stung by the pain of having been denied the opportunity to play in the NHL, but he publicly expresses few regrets. The Rangers management of the day should have a few: it's not unreasonable to speculate that they could have won a Stanley Cup with Carnegie. Instead, the franchise would wait until 1994, when they beat -- who else? -- the Vancouver Canucks.
Carnegie's decision to keep his dignity is a triumph in itself.
That Jim Parrot would look to the mediocre Willie O'Ree over the spectacular Herb Carnegie as the luminary for black hockey players demonstrates that he's as out-of-touch with hockey history as he is out-of-touch with the issues at the heart of the Simmonds incident.
Simmonds is far from the only black hockey player in the modern era to experience racism. In one incident that comes to mind, Anson Carter -- whose career peak was a world championship-winning goal -- had a banana thrown at him during the 2004-05 NHL lockout... while he was playing as part of a team of touring NHL stars in Russia.
Simmonds, like Carter, like Carnegie, has opted to take the high road in this incident. Simmonds has opted to simply rise above the clearly-premeditated expression of hatred directed at him, and move on.
He's brought no personal agenda to the table; political, ideological, or otherwise.
If only Jim Parrot had opted to do the same thing -- instead of transforming the incident into a political smear -- he would be fit to comment on the matter. Sadly, he didn't, and unsurprisingly, he isn't.
As was shown during the Vancouver Canucks 2011 Stanley Cup run -- which ended in disappointment for all Canadians, on far too many levels -- a bizarre obsession lies in Jim Parrot's psyche to politicize the game in all sorts of ways that don't reflect the reality of it.
For example, in the mind of this deranged individual, the horrifying story about Philadelphia Flyers forward Wayne Simmonds having a banana thrown at him in London, ON has become an opportunity to blame Prime Minister Stephen Harper for some alleged resurgence of racism in Canada.
Those who have paid close attention to race issues in Canada for what they are, as opposed to what they wish it would be know better. All proper-thinking Canadians wish racism was a thing of the past in Canada. But we know it is not.
Racism has never really gone away in Canada, as much as we wish it would. It seems worthy of note that the race indcident that most readily comes to mind during the 2011 federal election, in which Harper won a majority government, involved not a Conservative candidate, but a Bloc Quebecois candidate who declared that Quebeckers would note vote for Romeo Saganash because he's Cree.
Let's not for get that the Bloc Quebecois was essential to the power-grabbing coalition of socialists and separatists that people like Jim Parrot so readily favoured in 2008.
Parrot's logic is hardly befitting the word. It proceeds something like this: Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada. A racist incident occurred in London, Ontario. Ergo, Harper must be to blame.
Parrot pretends to be deeply concerned about this incident -- and perhaps truly is, even if he isn't at all legitimately concerned with the issues intrinsic to it. But can't even keep his hockey history straight.
He treats Boston Bruins forward Willie O'Ree as the pioneer for black players in hockey. This assessment is actually incorrect.
O'Ree played a total of 45 games in the NHL for the Boston Bruins -- not bad for the first black player to ever do so. But those fully familair with hockey history know of another man... a man by the name of Herb Carnegie.
Carnegie began his professional career in 1938, while O'Ree was but three years old.
In 1948 Carnegie was invited for a tryout with the New York Rangers. Although he was widely regarded as one of the best players in the camp, fit to crack the Rangers starting lineup, he was instead offered a contract to play with the Rangers' minor league affiliate. The contract was worth less than he was earning playing for the Quebec Aces.
Among his teammates with the Aces was none other than Jean Bealiveau, who would later remark that Carnegie was one of the best players he had ever played with. Considering Bealiveau played with legends such as Maurice "The Rocket" Richard, this is high praise indeed.
Msny believe that if Carnegie had accepted the contract offered to him by the Rangers that he would have played in the NHL long before Willie O'Ree. Unlike O'Ree, whose NHL output totalled 14 points, he also would have excelled.
But Carnegie should always be admired for one thing: he knew that his self-respect and dignity were worth more than the possibility of one day, maybe, playing in the NHL after prostrating himself in order to have done it.
Hearing Carnegie talk about it today, he is still clearly stung by the pain of having been denied the opportunity to play in the NHL, but he publicly expresses few regrets. The Rangers management of the day should have a few: it's not unreasonable to speculate that they could have won a Stanley Cup with Carnegie. Instead, the franchise would wait until 1994, when they beat -- who else? -- the Vancouver Canucks.
Carnegie's decision to keep his dignity is a triumph in itself.
That Jim Parrot would look to the mediocre Willie O'Ree over the spectacular Herb Carnegie as the luminary for black hockey players demonstrates that he's as out-of-touch with hockey history as he is out-of-touch with the issues at the heart of the Simmonds incident.
Simmonds is far from the only black hockey player in the modern era to experience racism. In one incident that comes to mind, Anson Carter -- whose career peak was a world championship-winning goal -- had a banana thrown at him during the 2004-05 NHL lockout... while he was playing as part of a team of touring NHL stars in Russia.
Simmonds, like Carter, like Carnegie, has opted to take the high road in this incident. Simmonds has opted to simply rise above the clearly-premeditated expression of hatred directed at him, and move on.
He's brought no personal agenda to the table; political, ideological, or otherwise.
If only Jim Parrot had opted to do the same thing -- instead of transforming the incident into a political smear -- he would be fit to comment on the matter. Sadly, he didn't, and unsurprisingly, he isn't.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
I Really Hoped I Was Wrong...
...But maybe I was right. At least it seems that way.
It all begins with this post, after which I noted that Jim Parrot's expressed desire to claim a Stanley Cup victory as glory for himself (well, for Vancouver, BC, and Canada, but mostly for himself) as opposed to glory for the players.
I tried to get the message through to him: that it was the players who had to win the victory, the players who deserved the glory for it, and that he had no right to attach his values to them without their consent.
But Jim has a thick skull. He refused to listen, and went on a two-week long binge of bandwagon jumping and demagogic grandstanding.
I sat back and paid attention. And a disturbing pattern emerged.
It seemed to me that each time Jim wrote a post questioning the patriotism of any Canadian fans not backing the Canucks, or wrote a post about how badly victimized the Canucks and their fans allegedly have been, it seemed like the Canucks would lose the next game.
At one point Jim even pointed the finger squarely at Prime Minister Stephen Harper, blaming him for the Canucks game 4 loss (this despite the fact that Canadian teams have a 2-1 record in the Stanley Cup finals when Harper attends a game). Jim directed Harper to "stay away from our Canucks".
Jim, it seems, had also claimed what was believed to be the Canucks' impending glories for the political left. In this he merely did what all too many political extremists do: that is, make everything about politics. About their politics.
I'm not really a superstitious person. At times I enjoy to feign superstition, because sports-related rituals can be a lot of fun.
I don't believe in anything like hockey gods. But the Canucks' loss has me thinking about changing my mind.
On each side of the ice in this series, there has been a magnificent goaltender who deserves to win the Stanley Cup. In Roberto Luongo, there was a bedrock of a goaltender who was won nearly everything there is to win. In Tim Thomas, there was a goalkeeper who, despite his advanced age, refuses -- simply refuses -- to fade.
But somewhere in between these two players, perhaps the hockey gods saw something else. Perhaps they spied Jim Parrot, this vindictive little worm of a man, trying to claim the glory of a Stanley Cup win for himself; for his own narcissistic ends.
Perhaps the hockey gods looked upon Jim Parrot, heard his petulant whining, his bizarre demagogic grandstanding, and saw someone whose narcissism just cannot be justified. Perhaps it was enough to tip their favour toward Tim Thomas.
Or, much more likely, the hockey gods just don't exist. Injuries to Michael Samuelsson, Dan Hamhuis, Mason Raymond, and Alex Edler (who played game 7 with an undisclosed injury) caught up to them. Perhaps it was the Canucks' lack of championship-calibre play (allowing too many goals in the opening or closing minute of a period, giving up too many blowout victories to their opponents and generally proving themselves to be a fragile team with questionable heart). Poor officiating in the closing games of this series was definitely a factor as well.
One way or the other, maybe the Vancouver Canucks just lost, and Jim Parrot has to live with it, victim mentality and all.
To most Canucks fans, the average Canadian hockey fan should tip their hat. They showed up to support their team in nearly-undreamed of droves, and did so without a surplus of violent incidents or a riot. To most Canucks fan, the message should be: don't give up.
It sucks that your team lost, but all is not lost. Next year is another year. Hopefully, the Canucks can apply the hard lessons learned this year to the postseason next year, and rise from the ashes of this defeat with a triumphant victory.
For Jim Parrot, however, the message is entirely different: before the next time you try to claim someone else's accomplishment as your own, before you try to attach your politics to them without even asking for their agreement, before you try to use a hockey playoff as a wedge between Canadians of the left and the of right, think twice.
At least show them that much respect.
Well, fuck - Everything seemed to be going so well. Thanks, assholes, for ruining a good memory for a lot of people; including your fellow Canucks fans.
It all begins with this post, after which I noted that Jim Parrot's expressed desire to claim a Stanley Cup victory as glory for himself (well, for Vancouver, BC, and Canada, but mostly for himself) as opposed to glory for the players.
I tried to get the message through to him: that it was the players who had to win the victory, the players who deserved the glory for it, and that he had no right to attach his values to them without their consent.
But Jim has a thick skull. He refused to listen, and went on a two-week long binge of bandwagon jumping and demagogic grandstanding.
I sat back and paid attention. And a disturbing pattern emerged.
It seemed to me that each time Jim wrote a post questioning the patriotism of any Canadian fans not backing the Canucks, or wrote a post about how badly victimized the Canucks and their fans allegedly have been, it seemed like the Canucks would lose the next game.
At one point Jim even pointed the finger squarely at Prime Minister Stephen Harper, blaming him for the Canucks game 4 loss (this despite the fact that Canadian teams have a 2-1 record in the Stanley Cup finals when Harper attends a game). Jim directed Harper to "stay away from our Canucks".
Jim, it seems, had also claimed what was believed to be the Canucks' impending glories for the political left. In this he merely did what all too many political extremists do: that is, make everything about politics. About their politics.
I'm not really a superstitious person. At times I enjoy to feign superstition, because sports-related rituals can be a lot of fun.
I don't believe in anything like hockey gods. But the Canucks' loss has me thinking about changing my mind.
On each side of the ice in this series, there has been a magnificent goaltender who deserves to win the Stanley Cup. In Roberto Luongo, there was a bedrock of a goaltender who was won nearly everything there is to win. In Tim Thomas, there was a goalkeeper who, despite his advanced age, refuses -- simply refuses -- to fade.
But somewhere in between these two players, perhaps the hockey gods saw something else. Perhaps they spied Jim Parrot, this vindictive little worm of a man, trying to claim the glory of a Stanley Cup win for himself; for his own narcissistic ends.
Perhaps the hockey gods looked upon Jim Parrot, heard his petulant whining, his bizarre demagogic grandstanding, and saw someone whose narcissism just cannot be justified. Perhaps it was enough to tip their favour toward Tim Thomas.
Or, much more likely, the hockey gods just don't exist. Injuries to Michael Samuelsson, Dan Hamhuis, Mason Raymond, and Alex Edler (who played game 7 with an undisclosed injury) caught up to them. Perhaps it was the Canucks' lack of championship-calibre play (allowing too many goals in the opening or closing minute of a period, giving up too many blowout victories to their opponents and generally proving themselves to be a fragile team with questionable heart). Poor officiating in the closing games of this series was definitely a factor as well.
One way or the other, maybe the Vancouver Canucks just lost, and Jim Parrot has to live with it, victim mentality and all.
To most Canucks fans, the average Canadian hockey fan should tip their hat. They showed up to support their team in nearly-undreamed of droves, and did so without a surplus of violent incidents or a riot. To most Canucks fan, the message should be: don't give up.
It sucks that your team lost, but all is not lost. Next year is another year. Hopefully, the Canucks can apply the hard lessons learned this year to the postseason next year, and rise from the ashes of this defeat with a triumphant victory.
For Jim Parrot, however, the message is entirely different: before the next time you try to claim someone else's accomplishment as your own, before you try to attach your politics to them without even asking for their agreement, before you try to use a hockey playoff as a wedge between Canadians of the left and the of right, think twice.
At least show them that much respect.
Well, fuck - Everything seemed to be going so well. Thanks, assholes, for ruining a good memory for a lot of people; including your fellow Canucks fans.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Memo to Jim Parrot: the Vancouver Canucks Are Not Your Tools
Considering the nature of drivel that regularly passes for commentary on Let Freedom Rain, that particular corner of hate-based gibberish is ordinarily best left (largely) ignored.
Unfortunately, this isn't one of those times.
Rarely has a blogger ever offered as disturbing a look into the workings of their mind as Jim Parrot until a recent bizarre screed on that particular cesspool.
In short, the blogpost seems to suggest that Albertans -- particularly Calgarians -- are unpatriotic if they don't support the Vancouver Canucks in their playoff run. More bizarrely, Jim Parrot seems to have unilaterally annointed the Canucks as the team of the left. (One can rest assured he never bothered to actually ask Canucks fans, management, or players -- especially the players, as will be shown shortly -- what they think of this.)
Then there's the colossally stupid. Cornette face stupid. PressCORE.ca stupid.
Jim Parrot even links to a story suggesting that Stephen Harper has invoked some kind of Prime Ministerial power to automatically present the Stanley Cup to the Calgary Flames.
The clear problem for Jim Parrot is that the website carrying the tale, Canada Second, is very clearly a parody website (although the site's operator very cleverly declines to actually say so).
There's no indication from Parret that he understands that the story is satire. Considering some of the bizarre comments made on his website about Harper, it becomes very easy to suspect he believes it.
It wouldn't be the first ridiculously stupid thing he's ever said.
But as one gets into the discussion stemming from the post -- in which Parret again provides little sign he understands the story is satire -- he provides a very disturbing look into the inner workings of his political mind, and of the precise role he seems to think people are to play within collectivist machinations.
Hockey players, he seems to think, are mere tools:
It would likely shock Parret to learn that the Stanley Cup cannot be won by cities. It cannot be won by provinces. It cannot even be won by countries. If it could, Canada would have had one of its teams win the Cup at some point between today and 1993. The country has certainly wanted it badly enough.
The Stanley Cup is won by a team -- a team made up of individuals working together toward a shared and mutually-adopted purpose.
People are not tools. They are not chattel. They either work together out of choice, or they do not. Anyone who has ever watched hockey -- as opposed to subverting it for the purpose of wedge politics -- understands that it's the individual efforts of hockey players, focused into working as a team, that wins a championship. That goes for any other team sport.
Ultimately, in every way that really matters, the victories belong to the players who win them.
Jim Parrot's concept of hockey players as only tools is a frightening look into the worldview of far-left collectivism. But that only comes after one gets past the mind-numbing stupidity.
Unfortunately, this isn't one of those times.
Rarely has a blogger ever offered as disturbing a look into the workings of their mind as Jim Parrot until a recent bizarre screed on that particular cesspool.
In short, the blogpost seems to suggest that Albertans -- particularly Calgarians -- are unpatriotic if they don't support the Vancouver Canucks in their playoff run. More bizarrely, Jim Parrot seems to have unilaterally annointed the Canucks as the team of the left. (One can rest assured he never bothered to actually ask Canucks fans, management, or players -- especially the players, as will be shown shortly -- what they think of this.)
Then there's the colossally stupid. Cornette face stupid. PressCORE.ca stupid.
Jim Parrot even links to a story suggesting that Stephen Harper has invoked some kind of Prime Ministerial power to automatically present the Stanley Cup to the Calgary Flames.
The clear problem for Jim Parrot is that the website carrying the tale, Canada Second, is very clearly a parody website (although the site's operator very cleverly declines to actually say so).
There's no indication from Parret that he understands that the story is satire. Considering some of the bizarre comments made on his website about Harper, it becomes very easy to suspect he believes it.
It wouldn't be the first ridiculously stupid thing he's ever said.
But as one gets into the discussion stemming from the post -- in which Parret again provides little sign he understands the story is satire -- he provides a very disturbing look into the inner workings of his political mind, and of the precise role he seems to think people are to play within collectivist machinations.
Hockey players, he seems to think, are mere tools:
"I don't understand how the number of Canadians on a team matters. They are merely foot soldiers on a team representing a city, a province and in this year's Stanley Cup finals, a country (should the Canucks prevail over the Sharks). I find it kind of amusing that Vancouver has Swedes and Americans fighting for it. If Vancouver wins it all, the players are only the tools to victory, the victory itself belongs to Vancouver, BC and Canada. "The players actually out working their asses to the bone to win the Stanley Cup -- and this is very much precisely what it takes -- are, to Jim Parrot, mere tools to someone else's ends. The victories they win -- the fruits of their labour -- are not their own.
It would likely shock Parret to learn that the Stanley Cup cannot be won by cities. It cannot be won by provinces. It cannot even be won by countries. If it could, Canada would have had one of its teams win the Cup at some point between today and 1993. The country has certainly wanted it badly enough.
The Stanley Cup is won by a team -- a team made up of individuals working together toward a shared and mutually-adopted purpose.
People are not tools. They are not chattel. They either work together out of choice, or they do not. Anyone who has ever watched hockey -- as opposed to subverting it for the purpose of wedge politics -- understands that it's the individual efforts of hockey players, focused into working as a team, that wins a championship. That goes for any other team sport.
Ultimately, in every way that really matters, the victories belong to the players who win them.
Jim Parrot's concept of hockey players as only tools is a frightening look into the worldview of far-left collectivism. But that only comes after one gets past the mind-numbing stupidity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)