DTK

Randy Hillier Wrong On Bullying Bill

2012-01-04T13:19:00.003-05:00

Randy Hillier, MPP in the Parliament of Ontario, has opined against the current Liberal government’s anti-bullying legislation: “Bill 13, Accepting Schools Act, 2011”

Sticks and Stones

Writes Mr. Hillier:

Unlike many of those who have announced support for Bill 13, I have read the complete bill and the relevant sections of the Education Act that it amends.

A dubious claim, at best. For example, he accuses the bill of “not providing schools with any additional tools to reward or punish behaviour.”

Well, let’s look at the bill that Mr. Hillier claims to have read.

In the last section of the bill, paragraphs are added to Section 310 of the Education Act, adding that bullying is grounds for suspension and, therefore, subsequently expulsion.

That sounds like a new tool for punishing bad behaviour, or at least permission to use an old tool for a new reason. I don’t know what bill Mr. Hillier read.

He further writes:

Bill 13 mandates creating a host of new school clubs which could identify people in the club as being: “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, transsexual, two-spirited, intersexed, queer (or) questioning.”

Go read it. There’s nothing in that bill requiring the forming of clubs. School boards are required to support students who want to create their own clubs for promoting awareness of sexism, racism and other forms of discrimination.

Personally, I think that forming such clubs would be a good idea. A lot of people think so, including – it turns out – Mr. Hillier.

I know. Weird, huh? Let me explain.

He starts by saying that these clubs will single out students who join them and that this will make bullying worse. This ignores the fact that gay students are already being bullied into suicide and that the purpose of the clubs is to create alliances between the bullied gay kids and the straight kids who want to stand up for them.

But later in the article, he tells us:

The depth of a child’s understanding is amplified not only through reward or punishment, but by learning compassion and empathy. The difference between adults and children is that adults are expected to have already learned the lessons of life and developed conscience and compassion on their road to maturity.

Strange, isn’t it?

Here he is railing against the clubs and awareness groups that the law will permit – not require, but permit – and at the end of his article he writes about how important it is that children develop empathy. Gee, I wonder how they could do that, Mr Hillier. Maybe – could they – just possibly – learn it from groups of other students who promote awareness of these issues?

If you really want to understand Randy Hillier’s problem though, it’s located right in the middle of his article:

Bill 13 does the exact opposite of what is needed. Rather than minimizing differences, it helps segregate and highlight the differences between people.

What is needed, according to Mr. Hillier, is to minimize our differences. We need to get those gay kids to just stop acting so … god … damned … gay! Just act like straight kids! Play sports! Break things! Get out more! Except the girls … you lesbians need to stop dressing like boys, stay inside and take up sewing. Buy a dress and put on some make-up. We’re trying to minimize differences here, people! Get with the Randy Hillier program!

Oh, Dear Hudak.

2011-09-13T13:11:00.004-04:00

It should have been easy to run McGuinty out of town. Why, he raised taxes! Horrors! There's unemployment and everyone blames unemployment on the current government. Gas prices are high. That green energy thing seems like such a rip off.

And still, Timmy-boy, you screwed it up. You screwed it up horribly.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ontario-election/party-preference-for-ontario-voters-since-2001/article2163455/?from=2163820

Look at that. See that last peak for the PCs at around 42%? That was the day before Tim started opening his mouth and making word-noises.

His first ridiculous speechification was his demand to an end to the Hydro debt repayment charge on account of the fact that Ontarians had already made enough payments to cover the principal. Do we understand how stupid that makes him? Not only is he neglecting the fact that we haven't paid off the interest, he's also ignoring the part where Ernie Eves added to that debt in order "freeze Hydro rates".

Tim's latest Homer Simpson moment was his declaration that he would cut red tape in the government by 30%. In spite of everyone asking him to clarify - or at least give examples - of red tape, he really thought he'd picked a winner with this one. He doubled down today by stating that "We need to drain the red-tape swamp".

A swamp of red tape? The only quote that I can think of that comes anywhere near that is this one:

"Immigrants are the glue that holds together the gears of our country" - Homer Simpson.

Try picturing that: the draining of a swamp of red tape. The tape just gets stuck in the drain, doesn't it? Everything else goes down the drain ... but not the tape. It just clogs up the drain a bit a time, making things worse. Draining, it turns out, just isn't the thing to do with tape.

Now you might think that a guy who doesn't understand interest and can't work a metaphor for the life of him must be some kind of high school dropout, right? Nope. Tim Hudak is a child of two teachers and has two degrees in Economics. Unfortunately, none of that prevents him from being an idiot and Ontarians are starting to realize that.

Catholic Child Abusers

2011-03-05T15:23:00.003-05:00

No, I'm not not talking about the priests who are forcibly sodomizing little boys. That deserves attention, undoubtedly, but I'm talking about mental abuse. This kind of bullshit.

It wasn’t until her seven-year-old son asked her if he’d burn in hell that Marjorie Kirsop became concerned.
But this fall, when five-year-old Sarah Kirsop declared she had converted to Catholicism ...

Let's pretend for a moment that I, as a public school Grade 2 teacher, actually did what us "militant" atheists are accused of doing every day - and tried to force everyone to our non-religion.

Imagine, Mrs. Baptist's children came home and said:
"Mommy, Mr. DTK told us in school today that Jesus is a fairy tale. Did you know that? He even showed us parts of the bible that are wrong!"

I'd be fired in a day, union or no union.

So how come the only school board in the town of Morinville, Alberta - a school board which is officially a public school board - is allowed to teach hellfire and brimstone to the children of non-believers?

Riddle me that.

Bunch of jerks.

DeCloet: Stop hating Americans! Wah-wah!

2010-12-13T12:37:00.003-05:00

Go ahead, read it. At least the first two pargagraphs.

Apparently, Canada's relative success in weathering this recession is nothing to be particularly happy about. It's some kind of accident that we did better than the Americans. And anybody who is proud of how our previous government reined in corporate greed, refused to participate in banking shenanigans and what not ... well, those people are just exercising their "latent anti-Americanism".

Or not.

A cure for that smugness lies in the Bank of Canada’s latest review of the financial system, and its warnings that Canadians are still spending money they don’t have. Some facts leap out.

Yes. That's what we need: a "cure" for our "smugness". Right on. 'Cause we all hate Americans, see, and we need to be taught that we're stupid, too!

So here's how it worked. The American government struck down decades-old (even century old) laws regulating banks. They let very wise, very wealthy people run roughshod over the economy and the poor people. Those people left the economy dry as a bone and left the taxpayer holding the bag.

The Canadian government didn't do that.

So then the United States got sick. Really, really sick. And it started to affect us.

So our government and the Bank of Canada, working in tandem, cranked our interest rates down to historic lows in order to stimulate the economy by making it cheap to borrow money.

And we borrowed. And we're in debt.

See?! We're just as dumb as the Americans! Take that you pinko, leftist whackjobs!

Yeah. Yeah.

The difference, in case you missed it, was that we were smart enough not to leave Conservatives in power for too long. We can see their greed. We can see what they're going to do us. Either they'll go directly for the money, or they'll try to take out the education and health care systems first. We notice, and we kick them out.

As long as we had the Liberals in, they marched us toward surplus and conservative (!) fiscal policies with a proper long term outlook. You put Conservatives in, as the Americans did year after year after year, and you get a financial mess.

That, in the end, is the difference. We're willing to take a long term view, tax our wealthy people, and make things work. The Americans took Reagan and two Bushes, let their economy spin downward out of control and instead believed what the liars were saying instead of what they were doing.

No, that's not "anti-Americanism". It's just what happened.

And it's journalists like Derek DeCloet, Americaphiles all, who refuse to see that there are characteristic differences between the populations. It's people like that who are hurting our country by spreading this myth that we're only being different for the sake of difference.

It's time people like that, people who truly hate what this country is about, get called out for what they are: anti-Canadians.

Our Anti-Canadian Government

2010-12-10T09:27:00.003-05:00

With Vic Toews at the front.

They've been secretly crafting a North American security agreement. Why is it done in secret? Why, because Canadians are too stupid, naive and anti-American for this sort of agreement to take place in the light of day.

[a leaked document] provides a rare insight into how the government regards Canadians: as a nation ignorant of the true scale of the security threat it faces and more concerned with privacy rights.

See that? You're too dumb to comprehend the horrid terrorist threats coming our way! You stupid left-wing whackos keep quoting these statistics that say 100 times as many people have died in car accidents as terrorists incidents. Stop doing that and learn to be afraid, dammit!

Is there some reason that Canadians should be worried about their privacy?

“Greater information sharing is part of the initiative. The safeguarding of privacy and sovereignty will be of concern for Canadians,” the document says.

See what your government thinks of you? You're worried about your privacy. Don't you realize that in order for shipping containers to be properly inspected at Canadian ports, the American government needs to have your biometric data, medical history and a bunch of other things they'll use against you. I mean, seriously, people: the guys who are going to interrogate you in Syria need that information to torture you effectively!

“The Canadian public may underestimate the security threat to Canada,” the communication plan says.

No, we don't underestimate it. The problem is that the government overestimates that threat. Here, you do the arithmetic if you want. It looks to me like about 350,000 people have died in traffic accidents since 9-11. That's a hundred times the number who have died from terrorism.

I think Canadians have a pretty shrewd idea how dangerous terrorism is. I think our government is exaggerating so it can get deeper in bed with the Americans.

So let's just get to the meat of this issue:

“Notwithstanding our significant investment to date, a perception exists in the U.S. that Canada has not focused enough on security,” the Public Safety document says.

That's right, puppy. You're a good dog, but not good enough. Now roll over and play dead for Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam wants to handle your immigration for you, so he can extradite refugees he doesn't like to someplace where torture is legal. He wants to see your records, examine your people, know what they're up to ...

And once he has all your records. Once he know exactly what you're doing every moment of every day, then maybe - just maybe - he'll let some of your trucks cross the border without a tonne of harassment.

Or not. Whatever. Terrorism, you know.

McGuinty Just Wanted to Help the Police

2010-12-10T09:14:00.004-05:00

In response to the Ombudsman's report that the use of a wartime act to police the G20 protests in Toronto was probably illegal and unconstitutional, our Premier had the following to say:

“We moved pretty quickly on this thing in order to help our police at the earliest possible opportunity,” he said. “We did not take the appropriate steps to communicate this to the public.”

No, Mr. McGuinty. You've got it all wrong.

The problem isn't that you "didn't take the appropriate steps to communicate ...". The problem is that you didn't take the appropriate steps at all.

Your job, in case you've forgotten, isn't to facilitate the police. Your job isn't to protect the people with riot gear, batons, guns and tasers.

Your job is to protect the freedom of the people. You were supposed to protect our rights. It wasn't that you communicated your unconstitutional law in a poor manner. It's that you invoked an unconstitutional law and interrupted the freedom of the people to speak their minds.

That's the unforgivable crime here.

The Anti-Canadians don't want to live in Wonderland

2010-12-03T23:04:00.005-05:00

That's what the rest of us want, apparently. We have an "Alice In Wonderland" view of politics and terrorism, according to the former head of CSIS.

Someone named "J.L. Granatstein", writing for the Ottawa Citizen, agrees.

It goes along with that "inferiority complex" myth that the Americans, along with Canadian journalists and right wing politicians, like to spread. Because, naturally, if you disagree with American policies, there must be something wrong with you. Maybe you have a small penis? Just sayin'.

Well, it's time to call bullshit. It's also time to call this attitude for what it is:

Anti-Canadianism.

The vast majority of Canadian people believe in a few core values: social medicine; the illegality of torture; international law; peace keeping.

Our elected leaders, a good chunk of our military brass and many of our journalist-pundits, have separate values. Stuff like private medicine, torture-but-keep-it-quiet, dumping on the United Nations, starving peace keeping forces until they fail to function.

They hate Canada. There's no other way to put it. They find themselves at the top of a power structure, elected by people they actually hate.

So they tell us that our values are unrealistic. They tell us our rules are just getting in the way. They deride our hope for the future as naive.

They really, truly, hate us.

If you read that Citizen article, you can see the hatred. Granatstein has to tell us how we aren't "pulling our own weight" and how that threatens our "sovereignty". What he means is that the U.S. will conquer us if we don't do what they want. And then he wonders what part of American policy we could legitimately oppose?

Granatstein is upset that Canadians will easily fall in to "paroxysms of moral outrage" while failing to finish the quote from which that phrase came - namely the interrogation after torture of a child soldier. Yeah, J.L, believe it or not we get pissed off when children are tortured - even if you hold on to them for eight years and torture them as adults.

We're so fucking naive that way.

Regarding Afghanistan, what he says with irony, I say with conviction*:

How much better if the money wasted on defence spending had gone for day care or better medicare.

This is typical of anti-Canadians. Never does he explain or justify what the United States government does. It's enough to assume that America is right and everyone else is naive, stupid or evil.

I'm not naive. I do aim for everyone on this planet to live in a kind of Wonderland. By that I mean: everyone has food to eat; everyone is free from violence; every child is safe and secure; no one in enslaved; everyone can vote for their leaders.

Will it happen in my lifetime, the whole world over? Will people all over this world dump the religions and other vile philosophies that lead them violently all over the globe?

Not likely. But it's still the goal, and it's quite opposite to where Granatstein's heroes would take us - and have been taking us for decades.

I'm reminded of Philip Pullman, from the very end of the his Northern Lights trilogy.

There is no kingdom of heaven. Never was. Never will be. The idea is dead. The only thing we can do is build the republic of heaven. And we have to do that right here, on Earth.

And we will not arrive at the republic of heaven on Earth via extrajudicial killings, secret torture, enslaving people across the globe and out of sight, stealing resources from other countries and forcing other kinds of misery in far off places.

Anyone who believes so is naive, stupid and evil, and it's time we started calling them out on it. It's also time that Canadians stood up, pointed fingers, and called out the people who don't represent our values.

* - sorry Cap'n, had to steal that line.

Diplomacy and Secrecy

2010-12-03T09:32:00.004-05:00

I watched a CBC interview, linked from Greenwald's salon blog.

About half way through that video, a former Canadian diplomat comes on for a interview in which he derides the latest Wikileak as bad for diplomacy. His argument, boiled down, is this:

1. The Indonesian gov't was carrying out horrible human rights abuses against the East Timorese
2. The East Timorese told the Canadian diplomat
3. The Canadian diplomat told the Canadian gov't
4. The Canadian gov't could use this information in negotiations with the torturing, human rights abusing Indonesian gov't.

His argument is basically that, should this path of the information (tortured -> diplomat -> gov't) be broken by a lack of secrecy, it would fall apart. Victims would no longer feel safe to complain. Diplomats like himself would be too scared to report.

Seems reasonable, doesn't it?

Except it's bullshit.

His argument boils down to the idea that I should trust Stephen Harper, Jean Chretien or Paul Martin - under cloak of secrecy - to solve human rights problems the world over.

Really? That's your best argument? That political leaders will do the right thing if we just cover our eyes and ignore them?

I have very little patience for that level of willful stupidity, especially as it comes from someone who ought to know better.

The best thing, Mr. Diplomat, is transparency. You know what stops wars? Seeing little girls burnt by napalm. Seeing helicopters pilots shooting up vans full of Iraqi children. Seeing East Timorese slaughtered and executed by the tens of thousands (which, you'll note was not prevented by our diplomatic cables).

Would I prefer to trust the Internet or the government?

I think you know the answer.

Arguing About Hate Crime

2010-11-01T22:59:00.002-04:00

Once it had been explained to me, I found it pretty simple.

When you single out a group of people as a target for hatred and violence, you assault a whole community (where "assault", legally speaking, includes "threatening"). So we made a law to make it clear that inciting hatred against a visible group of people is a crime.

So if you beat up a black guy or a brown guy or a gay guy, you're only guilty of "aggravated assault". That means, basically, "causing bodily harm".

But if you repeatedly assault members of the same group over and over again in a way that intimidates others of that group, well, you're not just guilty of aggravated assault in each case, but of "assault" against the whole community. Y'know, seeing as they all have to worry about crazy ass bigots beating them up.

Not complicated.

Unless of course, you've got your blinders full on like these guys over at Christian Governance.

Then it's all about how those pansy-ass liberals are bent on keeping the poor, beleagured white male down. Oh, poor white males! How ever will they cope?!

Erin Larson: Apologies in Advance

2010-10-18T21:19:00.005-04:00

I wanted to make this apology in advance, on behalf of the biggest jackasses on my side of the gender divide. But I'm just a tad late.

I wanted to apologize for the sexual slurs that are about to come your way.

I used to think feminism had gone overboard, that some women had taken it too far, that the resultant vector was one of discrimination against men. I was wrong about that. I figured that our over a decade ago.

But I can tell you, young woman, that the jackasses will be out for you. I can't provide much beyond my encouragement and the villification of said jackasses, so I offer that and a piece of advice: spit in the eye of anyone who looks at you sideways.

Shields up. Armour on.

It begins:
"Wonder what she'd say if someone talked about her SEX LIFE.
Matter of fact, who would ever be the male friend of this abomination?"

Yeah. Great.

Officer Bubbles vs. YouTube

2010-10-16T20:47:00.003-04:00

Constable Adam Josephs: Officer "Bubbles".

Among all the evil that happened during the G20 protests and the ridiculous police crackdown - among all the illegal arrests, harassment, beatings and everything else - the thing we will most remember will be Constable Adam Josephs threatening to arrest a girl for blowing bubbles.

"If one of those bubbles lands on me, that's assault."

Indeeed.

And so the Internet community at large decided that Bubbles deserved mockery. They created animations featuring Adam Josephs arresting Santa Claus, a doctor, President Obama and others.

And the poor Constable, representative of a police force that let the Black Bloc wander around Toronto trashing the city so it could have an excuse to violently crack down on peaceful demonstrators, is charging defamation.

Up yours, buddy.

You've got the batons. You've got the guns. You've got the Tasers.

Apparently, the bunch of you even have the authority to intimidate, harass, beat and arrest people with complete impunity. You've got judges that set bail conditions like "no political expression" on people like Alex Hundert.

But us?

We've got Youtube.

And if you want to beat and harass people expressing their opinions?

We're going to ruin your lives and every memory anyone ever has of you.

Suck it up, Bubbles. It's a new world.

h/t to Rev. PaperBoy at Galloping Beaver

Raiders of the Lost Ark = Pointless

2010-10-08T23:35:00.003-04:00

Seriously. Think about it.

All Indy had to do was let that Belloq dude take the medallion. He would have found the ark, opened it, and killed himself and all the Nazis.

Then the good guys swoop in with the greatest of ease and make off with the conveniently self-sealed ark and toss it in that warehouse.

Instead, we have to kill a bunch of Nepalese, burn down a bar, kill a whole lot of Egyptians, drag Indy under a car, annoy a bunch of African boat guys, etc. etc.

And then what? Bad guy opens ark and everyone who looks at it dies.

Waste. Of. Time.

Maybe the guys who do the "How it should have ended" videos can do that next.

Cannon fodder

2010-10-08T08:48:00.003-04:00

Quite an uproar over the "cannon fodder" video.

It involves a fictional mother of a Canadian soldier lamenting that she might not have had children if she had known that they would be used as cannon fodder.

Lots of anger over that, including one nonfictional mother of a slain soldier who said, “Because they died in combat, [these women] have the nerve to describe them as cannon fodder.”

Nerve?

Yes, I suppose it takes nerve to break the veneer of patriotism that tells people that their children died a great and wonderful cause when in reality they're dying for no particularly good reason.

But if it's true that the war is pointless and wrong, and no one says anything, more children are going to die.

Seriously. If you want to convince the rest of us that you're right. If you want to convince us that the war in Afghanistan is worthwhile and winnable, then show us how you're going to win. Show us how you're already winning. Show us what you could possible hope to accomplish.

I see a lot of nothing. I see the schools we built being used for storing and shipping marijuana. I see our money ending up in villas in Dubai. I see the government we set up mistreating its women as badly as their enemies did.

That's not worth dying for.

Canada will be a "pimp"

2010-09-29T13:55:00.004-04:00

Canada will be taking the role of a pimp, according to one MP. That's because the courts have struck down anti-prostitution laws that, while not preventing prostitution, made it very dangerous.

Conservative MP Joy Smith:

“My goodness we would have the nation as the pimp and that’s wrong and we can’t afford that,”

Definition: pimp

a person, esp. a man, who solicits customers for a prostitute or a brothel, usually in return for a share of the earnings; pander; procurer.

I don't think the government would be responsible for soliciting customers for prostitutes, although they might do a good job with putting up signs. That seems to be their thing, lately.

The government would be responsible, however, for doing the same things that they are currently (supposed to be) doing for other workers: protecting their rights; keeping them safe from criminals; taxing them.

On the other hand, I can't expect much better than hyperbole from Conservatives. Their chief arguments in court seem to revolve around witnesses who pulled stuff out of their asses and the belief that prostitution was inherently "degrading and unhealthy".

It's a lot like being gay, I guess. I mean look at all those gay kids who get beat up and/or commit suicide. Must be an unhealthy lifestyle.

Well, Conservative super-right-wing christian freaks. You've had 2000 years to try to stamp out prostitution and all you've done is make women miserable. Maybe we'll try something different for a little while and see how it works out.

Transport Canada = Medieval Theologians

2010-08-08T13:56:00.003-04:00

Canada has an addiction to rule making. Thus spake Joseph Brean, National Post libertarian dude.

That's right. Our penchant for making rules to prevent future disasters based on statistics about past disasters? That's basically the nanny state.

Aren't we crazy.

I can't imagine what Brean would have to say about Transport Canada. Bunch of stuck up, pretentious nerds pouring over every airline crash to determine the cause and try to prevent future crashes.

Assholes, those guys.

"We cannot just accept that this was a death. We've got to give that death meaning, and the way to give it meaning is to pass a law."

So the right idea is what? Shrug our shoulder and say, "shit happens"? Brilliant.

He called it a throwback to medieval times, a belief that nothing happens without somebody causing it, that every natural phenomenon has a moral aspect. Modern safety regulations, like witchcraft or divine retribution, are based on a faulty premise about who is responsible for stuff happening, and what can be done about it. Like religion, they are an effort to bring meaning to a cruel and random universe.

Right. We're the religious ones for trying to find rational causes for everything.

And you, Mr. Brean, are the rational one for just saying, "shit happens" and hoping it doesn't happen again.

To be perfectly honest, his opinion sounds the most medieval: hey man, sometimes god just does you in. It's not your place to ask why.

Catholics Oppose Gay Marriage

2010-08-06T09:07:00.006-04:00

Big news there, I suppose.

They have a website though, now.

Their points, in order.

Natural marriage is the foundation of a civilised society.

My tendency here is to simply add the suffix [citation needed] to the text. The foundation of our society, last I checked, was freedom. Freedom of the speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly ... that sort of thing. The Taliban have marriage. The Vikings had marriage. Soviet Russia had marriage. Marriage - whether forced, voluntary or some combination thereof - has been around for a long time and I don't know of any correlation between its prevalence and level of civilization a society has.

Same-sex unions, as pseudo-marriages, involve gravely sinful acts that are never defensible, and the very assimilation to marriage damages marriage itself.

We're just going to ignore that "pseudo-marriage" phrase, as you're assuming your conclusion here. (i.e. see above, [citation needed]). Gravely sinful acts? I direct you to read your bible for all of the other "gravely sinful" acts. Like eating lobster, crab, oysters or clams. Or weaving two kinds of fabric together. Or sewing two different crops in the same field. Or accidentally seeing your father naked or your wife while she's menstruating.

Also, I think you're using the word "assimilation" incorrectly. Good try, though. Big words can sometimes be impressive.

The law is a great teacher, and it encourages or discourages behaviour.

True that. You're 1 for 3, quite respectable in major league baseball. The law should serve as a guideline for ethics by, for example, demonstrating that everyone has equal rights and that one group of people can't force their morality on another unwilling group.

Government-backed same sex civil unions would encourage and normalise homosexual behaviour, and it would harm natural marriage, children, adults, and homosexuals themselves.

That's a lot of claiming you're doing there.

Yes, it would normalize homosexual behaviour. Why is that bad? What we've seen, with celibate priests for instance, is that making sex forbidden can cause some pretty harsh overreactions and perversions. I'd rather have gay people feel normal, not just for those reasons, but because there's really no reason for people who engage in consensual sex to feel bad about it.

Also, I'm living in Canada. We've had Evil, Gay Sex Marriages for years now and there's no evidence that it's destroyed or harmed Holy, Opposite Sex Marriages. Perhaps you could provide evidence.

And yes, the adopted kids of gay people turn out just fine.

The law should promote behaviours that are beneficial and prohibit (or at least not endorse) those that are destructive.

Did you read the link above? The study is pretty clear: "...the vast majority of studies show that children living with two mothers and children living with a mother and father have the same levels and qualities of social competence."

You'll have to explain how the Evil, Gay Scourge is destructive.

Therefore, the law should promote natural marriage, and it should provide no option for government-backed same-sex marriage or civil unions.

Therefore, nothing. None of your points above were accurate depictions of reality. Therefore, your conclusion is unsupported.

Meanwhile, take off that shirt. I believe you're wearing a shirt made of two types of fabric woven together and - while your god is explicitly in favour of bigotry and brutal punishments in that vein - he really doesn't like clothing made of two fabrics woven together.

Liberals Flunk Economics

2010-06-14T14:22:00.006-04:00

Or so Zogby would have you believe.

They did a poll where they made statements about "basic economic" issues and saw that the left-leaning people got the answers wrong.

Now, you're probably expecting these basic statements to be something very clear and non-controversial. Something like "Inflation is the gradual increase in the price of goods" and such.

No such luck. Let's go over the statements and correct answers.

"Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable"
According to the WSJ, smart people would agree. Dumb people, on the left, disagree.
I guess that depends on the restrictions. Restrictions requiring developers to make a certain portion of their buildings as accessible to low-income earners would make housing more affordable, wouldn't it?

Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (unenlightened answer: disagree)
Unenlightened? Whatever. Yes, services are more expensive because we license engineers and plumbers and what not. You could also have unlicensed people work in your house and end up having to pay for most of your jobs to be done twice. Then add in the cost of the damages to your house done by the first guy. Depends on what you count.

Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree).
This depends very much on exactly where your numbers come from and which segment of society you mean. Are we talking wage disparity? Access to health care? Longevity? The inflation accounted income for the lowest quintile of Americans has dropped since a peak in the early 1970s. Rich people are doing fine, though.

3) Rent control leads to housing shortages (unenlightened answer: disagree).
Again, it depends on the "rent control" in question. Done properly, it's merely a way of keeping your landlord from holding you hostage in your own home, gouging against the expense of moving. Done improperly, it can cause shortages because no one wants to rent out houses anymore.

4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (unenlightened answer: agree).
If this was the statement, not paraphrased, then I agree that the answer is no. A company has to have all, or nearly all, of the market share to be a monopoly.

Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree).
The "unenlightened" would agree? Who are the fucking idiots who don't think third world workers are being exploited? Are the union leaders being assassinated in Colombia not enough of a hint? Or the sports shoe sweatshops? What world is Zogby living in that doesn't have exploited third world workers?

Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree).
Actually, yes it does. When NAFTA came to my home town, it shut down two steel plants, a Union Carbide and a bunch of other plants. Those people became unemployed. Even in the Libertarian Faery Dust version of things, free trade causes unemployment, but the Faery Dust comes and retrains the 50-year-old steel worker as an IT consultant.
Yes. Free Trade also causes employment - in Mexico and other such places. But don't pretend it doesn't cause unemployment, at the very least in the immediate sense.
That kind of pretense is simply unenlightened.

Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (unenlightened answer: disagree).
Minimum wage causes unemployment, does it? I'd like to see them prove it. What it does, in my considered opinion, is distribute income away from multi-billion dollar corporations toward their employees. This creates local expenditures (local goods) rather than remote ones (yacht, villas and the like).

After going through this list, I'm going to have to argue that the guys at Zogby are a bunch of right-wing, wealthy, ideologically-locked jackasses too full of their own pomposity and arrogance to evaluate anyone else. Their conclusion is that, basically, anyone who disagrees with their biases (the same biases that have led the United States in to its current financial disaster) must be stupid.

Best of luck, assholes.

Mike Harris's Honorary Hypocrisy

2010-06-09T12:38:00.005-04:00

Nippissing University, presumably out of some masochism or ignorance, has decided that Mike Harris is deserving of an honorary degree.

Mike Harris.

Remember him? I do. He's the guy who wanted to "create a crisis in the education system." Why? To improve it? No, that was the lie his government told on the outside. The real reason, as has been recorded, was to "get government out of the education business."

That's why I assume the people at Nippissing are a bunch of masochists. Why would a public institution grant a degree to a man who wanted to destroy education.

The teachers are upset. In fact, they're so upset that they're considering the idea of refusing to give seats to student teachers from Nippissing.

The loyal Harris followers - specifically the people who hate public education and would prefer that the poor suffer in ignorance - will be quick to jump on this as if it were the teachers' fault. They'll tell us that the teachers are "using students" in their fight again. That's what they did when Mike Harris unilaterally took away teachers' retirement benefits, so I imagine it will happen again.

But frankly, I support the teachers. You know what? If you choose to go to Nippissing, after it honours a man who tried to destroy public education in Ontario, then you shouldn't come crawling to Ontario's public school teachers for apprenticeship. Go find a private school. Otherwise it's SOCIALISM! (ZOMG!)

Those teachers. They have a long memory. It's surprising how long people can be bitter at you when you use taxpayer money to attack them with lying, deceptive televisions ads.

The only real problem is that teachers are far too polite. They won't actually go through with it. The other problem is that they're really ineffective at public campaigns vilifying people. That was really Mike Harris's forte.

What's With All Those Pregnant Christian Teens?

2010-05-20T13:48:00.004-04:00

Ever wondered why we have so many pregnant Christian teens?

Wonder no more.

You see, "Sexual relationships, while enacted privately, are public property." That's why birth control is so very, very bad. If people use birth control, the rest of us have no way of monitoring their behaviour and measuring their sinfulness.

How do you know if two married people are keeping their marital vows? (by the way, for you non-religious folk, you should know that Christians are required to have lots of sex). Why, it's the babies! The babies prove they're doing it right!

And how do you know if unmarried teens are being sinful, dirty miscreants? Why, it's the babies!

See how clear everything is when you outlaw contraception? The babies tell you everything. That's why contraception is bad. It lets you keep your sexuality to yourself, almost as if it were your own private business and not a responsibility of all of society.

Hm.

I suppose I should have stopped at "However, I salute their stupidity."

That was probably a red flag right there.

But if you're wondering why we have pregnant teenagers, look no further than that mentality. It's the mentality that birth control is a worse sin - by way of being premeditated premarital sex - than having a baby you can't possibly raise properly. You see, sex without birth control could just mean you got carried away. But sex with birth control means you planned it, you evil bastard.

Makes me glad to be an atheist. It means I don't have to rationalize stupidity like this. It also means Christians have no business invading my privacy to judge how I live my life.

Sex Education in Ontario

2010-05-03T16:01:00.004-04:00

Saw this one in the paper today:

Schools Shouldn't Teach Sexual Orientation

Here's the exciting stuff:

In its Facts about Youth pamphlet, the U.S. pediatricians college states that most students (more than 85 per cent) with same-sex attractions will ultimately adopt a heterosexual orientation if not otherwise encouraged.

It further states that "declaring and validating a student's same-sex attraction during the adolescent years is premature and may be personally harmful."

Wow! I didn't know that "validating" same-sex attraction was harmful. What a weird thing to say. The only way you would say something like that is if, well, you thought homosexuality was harmful.

Say. Who are the "U.S. pediatricians college" anyway? That sounds very official. Let's check them out.

The writer is actually talking about the "American College of Pediatricians". That sounds like a real group, doesn't it? Let see what other things they write ... oh, good god ...

Abstinence only is a good idea
How to make gay kids straight
Gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt

You can read the rest of their "Position Papers" if you want. It's a basic list of the right wing's wishing-makes-it-so version of scientific studies.

Even the 85% number they quote - the one L.M. Small quoted - refers to a 1992 study that showed that 26% of 12 year old boys weren't sure about their sexual orientation. Yet only 2-3% of them turn out gay later! If only we could have bombarded those last 2-3% with how evil it is to be gay, think how much better everything would be! No more of teh gayness!

Yes, well.

I didn't find any fault with the actual sex education curriculum that the government was planning on implementing. The earlier that you can teach kids the words "penis" and "vagina", the better off we'll all be. But apparently, if you're a religious nutcase, all it takes is a word in their ears and they'll turn in to crack whores.

And in Arizona? Fascists.

2010-05-03T15:58:00.005-04:00

I hate to go straight to Hitler, but there's just nowhere else to go.

The Arizona state legislature has declared that police can demand to see documents from anyone that might be an illegal immigrant. If you don't have your proof of citizenship or a proper visa? You go to jail.

Look, jackasses.

If you don't like being compared to the world's most notorious fascists, maybe you shouldn't make laws that allow you to round up different looking people, demand their papers, and throw them all in jail.

Just saying.

Meanwhile in Oklahoma: Assholes

2010-04-29T12:12:00.002-04:00

They made a law that women undergoing an abortion must have an ultrasound - possibly an invasive vaginal one - before having the abortion. During the procedure, the person doing the ultrasound is required to describe the fetus out loud.

If that doesn't make it clear - if it wasn't already clear - that anti-abortion advocates are a bunch of assholes out to torment and torture pregnant women, I don't know what could possibly make it clear.

Gun Toting Hypocrites

2010-04-07T08:37:00.002-04:00

So everyone has seen that video? You know the one? Where the reporters from Reuters are walking around an otherwise empty street somewhere in Iraq and the the American helicopter pilot reports that they have weapons?

That one. You see, there are actually some spots in that video where it actually looks like a couple of the guys are carrying weapons. Surprise! In one of the most unstable places on the planet, people carry around weapons for their own protections. They might even hire bodyguards to protect them.

Not that they fired at any Americans or anything. No. They did nothing aggressive at all besides point a camera at the helicopter. In fact, they're walking around the streets quite casually, as if taking a tour.

But, decry the knee jerk pro-Americans, they had weapons! They had weapons! Look at 2:45 (or 3:02 or 3:15 or whatever, I don't care). That guy by the utility pole! That's an AK! That's an RPG! Those people all deserved to die! They were carrying weapons! Those reporters even deserved to die for hanging around with people with weapons!

Hm.

Let's think about this a moment. They were carrying weapons and therefore they deserve to die? Really?

Really really?

Because I seem to remember - and this seems to come from the same knee jerk pro America crowd - statements about weapons. Where was it now ... where was it ... Oh, here it is:

* Second Amendment – Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Fucking hypocrites.

h/t to the PZ and thanks Wiki.

Idiocy? Banning Religion.

2010-03-25T21:55:00.004-04:00

It's just the stupidest thing you could possibly do. You can't get rid of a religion or a culture by banning it. You'd think that people in Quebec would realize that all that does is drive it underground, romanticize it and make it stronger.

But the Quebec government is going to ban the niqab on government premises. It's the worst possible thing.

First of all, the women who wear these things are supposedly the victims of the a male-dominated religion. Let's just grant that for the sake of argument. So what are you doing to these victims? You're forcing them to choose between government services and the wraths of their evil husbands. Brilliant!

Second, it's a cultural thing. These women are acclimatized to feel naked if they don't cover their faces. I can't speak on their behalves directly, but it might just be like walking around topless for them. Do you know what the cure is for that feeling? Education. It may in fact be the case that certain women will never, despite everything our society offers, get used to the idea of baring their faces in public. So what? I doubt their daughters will feel the same.

What is logically necessary?

If a woman wants a government service that requires identification, she must be able to prove her identity. That's it. If that means showing your face, temporarily, then that's what they'll have to do.

Women who want a credit for a course involving public speaking must be willing to engage in public speaking. Otherwise they don't get the credit.

But to tell a woman to drop her culture and walk around naked (from her point of view) is simply ridiculous. I don't care how frightened you are of Muslims or brown people or people with funny accents, you don't get to run their lives like that. It's just not how we do things here.

I'll be perfectly honest. As an atheist, I feel that pretty much every religion is a curse on the human race. The subject of enlightening people is always a matter of concern. But this isn't the way. This just won't work and we should know better than to try.

Coulter: Confusing Dissent and Censorship

2010-03-24T11:04:00.003-04:00

So the bile-spewing Ann Coulter arrived in Ottawa yesterday and got so frightened by people who were legally disagreeing with her that she ran away and is filing a human rights complaint.

There's nothing in what I've read that suggests anyone threatened violence. Okay, nothing except a quote from Ezra Levant that protesters were "swarming", whatever that means. Since there's no sign that the police arrested anyone, as they are wont to do at the least provocation, I'm going to ignore Ezra and wait for a less biased report.

Here's how it works, Ann. I know that, in your Fox News Bubble, you don't often encounter disagreement. You, O'Reilly, Hannity and Beck spew all the hatred and nonsense you want and nobody talks back. Canada isn't that big on protesting either, really, but we're a little better than the sheep you're used to.

Here in Canada, we have free speech. So you're permitted to come here and, as you did, tell a Muslim girl to "Take a camel" because "Muslims shouldn't be allowed on planes". Ignorant, but you can say it. You weren't arrested, were you? No, didn't think so.

But here's the thing. Free speech isn't just for you. It's also for all of the people who disagree with you. Get it? People are allowed to disagree with you. They're allowed to hold up signs and chant nasty things about you. They're allowed to be quite loud and vocal in disagreeing with you. That's part of free speech. It's called dissent.

I know. I know. You're not used to it. That circle jerk thing you have going inside Fox just reinforces your notion that nobody ever thinks you're wrong. But you came to Canada and were shocked to find people loudly disagreeing with you.

Oh noes!

So you and Ezra decided, instead of facing a disagreeable crowd who would shout down your ignorance and laugh at your stupidity, to make a big deal out of filing a human rights complaint. Good luck with that. When I see protesters arrested for threatening violence, you might have a case.

Until then, I'm going to just assume you're another cowardly, right wing blowhard.

He said what?

2010-03-16T22:03:00.004-04:00

"Canada condemns Israeli settlement expansion"

Did we really say that? Did a Conservative really condemn Israel for anything? I didn't think that was possible. The last time anything like it happened, it was very accidental. Peter McKay said that Canada would continue to work with whatever government the Palestinians elected. Because, you know, that's democracy for you. Peter McKay was swiftly corrected and reminded of the Harper government's staunch pro-Israel stance.

But then, did "Canada", in the person of Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, really "condemn" Israel?

Hm.

The article quotes the words “regret” and “concern”, but I don't see any language that would actually bend me to think that "condemnation" was the order of the day.

Still, why would the Tories do this? Makes me wonder.

Ah, wait.

The Obama administration immediately criticized the settlements in the toughest language possible — it issued its condemnation on the plan, in contrast to the softer language in Cannon's statement last week.

Ah. America Lite it is, then, huh? At least the Conservatives are consistent.

Child Saved From Catholic Education

2010-03-06T00:12:00.004-05:00

That's what I would have titled this article, which 9news in Denver chose to label: "Gay couple's child denied re-enrollment at Catholic school".

I mean, seriously, why would you want your kid to be raised in a school where they would teach him that his loving parents are terrible sinners who deserve to burn in hell if they don't repent from their love for each other?

No. The hazards of being raised Catholic are numerous and awful. It makes me happy to hear that one more child has been saved the misery.

Blaming The Troops Again

2010-03-05T11:23:00.003-05:00

I guess the Prime Minister is hoping that we've forgotten all of his earlier evasions and excuses.

“He shut it down to avoid legitimate questions about the Afghan detainee scandal,” Mr. Ignatieff charged as he asked that the Prime Minister release non-redacted documents the opposition says are essential to the story.

No. The Prime Minister said thousands of documents have already been released and show the Canadian Forces have conducted themselves honourably.

There he goes again. Second verse, same as the first. Stephen Harper wants to shuffle the blame off his own shoulders on to those of the soldiers who were the unwitting recipients of illegal orders.

Every time we go through this, he and his ministers keep acting as if the question is a matter of the behaviour of the soldiers. It's not. It's about the behaviour of the goverment - Harper's government - in giving orders to the soldiers.

It was the government that told the soldiers that the Afghan authorities were moral.

It was the government that told the soldiers to hand over prisoners to the Afghan authorities.

It is the government that should be punished.

Stop blaming the troops, Mr. Harper.

Was It Rape?

2010-03-03T12:01:00.002-05:00

What are you? Insane?

Of course it was rape. What kind of a stupid question is that?

Assuming the events went down as chronicled (the usual disclaimer), there's no other name for it.

In summary: a woman excuses herself from a party and goes to sleep in the bed of her sometimes-lover. The lover's identical twin sneaks in to the room and has sex with her. Something seems wrong. Some subtle cue throws her off. She turns on the light and realizes what happened.

And someone has to ask, "Did the mistaken identity negate her consent?"

Of course it did. Imagine this instead. A man and a woman are having consensual sex like they have on the Discovery Channel. While the woman is facing away, the man pulls out and a second man - hidden until this moment - slips in and penetrates her.

Is that rape? Damn right it is.

The analogy is coherent and obvious. She generally consented to sex with her lover. Drunk people can have sex without it being considered rape when they have such an arrangement. Drunk people with no such prior arrangement don't have that luxury. She consented to sex with her lover and was fine with him slipping in to the room. She did not consent to sex with his brother.

There was a question? Seriously?

Freedom vs Money

2010-03-02T14:01:00.005-05:00

The Canadian people, via a majority vote of their Parliament, demanded that the government release all data on the torture of Afghan detainees.

The government, in clear violation of our democracy, ignored this demand. It ignored the will of the people.

That's not a democracy. That's a dictatorship.

On the rare occasions where the Canadian people actually get a government to vote the way they want it to vote, how is it that the guy at the top can simply refuse to comply? How is it that he can then go and shut down the government to avoid more questions?

That's a dictatorship.

But Liberal MP Derek Lee wants to draw a line. He's raising what's called a "point of privilege"; a declaration that a government minister has violated the will of the people and is in contempt of Parliament.

They in fact are in contempt.

But he says that he doesn't want this point of privilege to get in the way of the budget, even though it should if parliamentary procedure is followed.

Mr. Lee., let's break this down. The Harper government doesn't want to deal with parliament. It wants to ignore it. It wants to be free to send people to other countries to have them tortured. It wants to send Afghans off to be tortured. It wants to strand torture victims and child soldiers in other countries. It wants to do a lot of illegal and immoral things.

Mostly it wants to ignore Parliament to get its agenda pushed through. If all those confidence attachments to trivial legislation didn't clue you in, I don't know what will.

The point here is that there is no point continuing with this Parliament if the Harper government continues to treat it with such contempt. There's no use presenting a budget, a throne speech or any other piece of legislation if Harper and his cronies are simply going to ignore the actual legislation and do whatever they please anyway.

The budget isn't that important.

Our freedom is.

Run your point of privilege.

Run it over everything else and get our nation back.

Patient Rights Coalition

2010-02-26T13:12:00.004-05:00

Somebody dropped off a pamphlet that looked liked a copy of this webpage in the lunch room at work yesterday.

Apparently someone feels that acupuncture actually has some utility and wants it to be covered by provincial health insurance in Ontario.

From the web page:

Acupuncture is one of the best professions for improving health.

Qualified meridian-based acupuncture (commonly referred to as TCM-based acupuncture) can cure over 50% of the ailments or diseases that cannot be cured or controlled from a Western medical viewpoint. It is the best health care profession to prevent or treat early stage cancers, colitis, Crohn’s disease, depression, diabetes (Type I and Type II), IBS, infertility, Lyme disease, lymphoma, Meniere’s disease, migraines, multiple sclerosis, osteoporosis, Rheumatoid arthritis, skin lupus, etc. Age-related conditions such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease can even be helped.

I can't help but want to adjust this a little, based on my frequent visits to wikipedia:

It is the best health care profession to prevent or treat early stage cancers^{[citation needed]}, colitis^{[citation needed]}, Crohn’s disease^{[citation needed]}, depression^{[citation needed]}, diabetes (Type I and Type II)^{[citation needed]}, IBS^{[citation needed]}, infertility^{[citation needed]}, Lyme disease^{[citation needed]}, lymphoma^{[citation needed]}, Meniere’s disease^{[citation needed]}, migraines^{[citation needed]}, multiple sclerosis^{[citation needed]}, osteoporosis^{[citation needed]}, Rheumatoid arthritis^{[citation needed]}, skin lupus^{[citation needed]}, etc.

But that's just me and I'm very cynical.

Happy News: Homeopathy Doesn't Work

2010-02-26T10:36:00.002-05:00

Surprise, surprise.

The U.K. House of Commons has figured it out.

77. There has been enough testing of homeopathy and plenty of evidence showing that it is not efficacious. Competition for research funding is fierce and we cannot see how further research on the efficacy of homeopathy is justified in the face of competing priorities.

Thank you and good night.

The Most Juvenile of Governments

2010-02-19T09:04:00.005-05:00

Honestly.

It's as if our government is run by five-year-olds. I could see a five year old saying something like this. "Mommy. I didn't break the vase. I just told my little brother to break it."

Oh, I get it kiddo. It's not your fault because you didn't physically break the vase yourself. Totally makes sense.

The Harper Government (for so they call themselves) wants the same kind of immunity.

"The plaintiff [Abdelrazik] alleges that the Defendant [the government] requested the Government of Sudan to imprison the plaintiff without legal grounds and shared information with the Government of Sudan to facilitate his continued imprisonment. He does not allege that the defendant directly imprisoned the plaintiff. In the absence of that material fact, there is no cause of action for false imprisonment."

That's right. Apparently the Harper Government can't be charged for the results of things they ask other people to do for them.

What a clever legal precedent. I'm sure various mafia bosses and other gang leaders will be greatly pleased to know that they are not responsible for things they ask other people to do. Another thing? Corporations can dump all the pollution they want in to rivers ... as long as they outsource it.

Brilliant, brilliant, legal precedent.

Grow up, you idiots. I know it's tough, but part of maturity is accepting the consequences of your actions. If you sent the man off to be tortured, you have to own up to it.

Otherwise, we're just going to think you're a bunch of immature cowards.

Canada != Israel

2010-02-17T15:14:00.002-05:00

(that symbol means "does not equal")

Just putting that out there. Some people seem to have forgotten. Like Junior Foreign Minister Peter Kent, for example.

He says he's just paraphrasing what Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said, and I honestly believe him.

I just don't agree with him.

Whereas Israel is a country in the middle east, currently in a grossly unbalanced war with a population whose land it is occupying, Canada is a country in North America in a state of peace with the population of natives whose land it is occupying.

See the difference? We don't have a treaty with Israel that says we will come to their aid, and we certainly aren't bound to declare war on its enemies. At least I don't think that we have such a treaty. I won't deny that this government is the sort that would put treaties through in secret.

I wonder how long it will be before President Harper reminds his ministers that they aren't to speak to the press without vetting from his office. That's what happened when Peter McKay said Nice Things about Palestinians once.

Unions: You're Doing It Wong

2010-02-05T20:04:00.003-05:00

The Union is supposed to be there to protect the workers from various job hazards. Among these hazards are things like health and safety concerns, lousy pay, poor benefits, poor job security and various kinds of abuse.

That's what I expect unions to do, whether I agree with them or not.

I do not expect unions to protect and cover up for workers who are abusing other workers.

Call me crazy, but I thought that the union's job was to protect the victims, not the abusers.

Maybe they're a little confused.

They're so confused, in fact, that the employers have stepped in and filed a Human Rights complaint against the Union.

I mean, wow.

That's like Stephen Harper calling you on your sick day just to make sure you're not out on a golf course.

I Blame The No Grammar Teaching

2010-02-02T09:50:00.005-05:00

The Canadian Press wants you to know that Texting, Twitter and "no grammar teaching" is causing students to have poor grammar.

First of all, there's this quote:

"I get their essays and I go 'You obviously don't know what a sentence fragment is. You think commas are sort of like parmesan cheese that you sprinkle on your words'," said Budra.

You "go", do you? The verb you want there is "say".

Moving on. Moving on.

He [Budra] too blames poor - or no - grammar instruction in lower schools.

Break that sentence down. "He blames no grammar instruction in lower schools."

That doesn't make sense. What the writer means to say is that Budra is blaming a lack of grammar instruction. Instead, the sentence as written actually means that Budra does not blame grammar instruction at all.

Imagine if you were arguing with a Conservative who was determined to blame the recession on the poor. You might reply with, "I blame no poor person for this recession."

With that sentence, you would be saying that you are not blaming poor people. But, according to the "grammar" in this particular article, you would be blaming the recession on a lack of poor people.

Grammar: if you're going to write an article about it, get your act together.

A Diatribe Against Teacher-Bashers

2010-01-29T10:22:00.001-05:00

My mother is a supply teacher in the elementary school system. Sometimes she would teach at my school. So when I was young I had to listen to my fellow students trashing my mother. Mostly the big, dumb students who’d been held back at least a year, but I digress. My father taught at my high school. So when I went to high school, I had to listen to those most assuredly bound for jail or permanent welfare trashing him.

Then Mike Harris came along. And for the last fifteen or twenty years, I’ve had to listen to everybody trash my parents and thousands of other decent, hard-working professionals whose goal in life was to educate the young and prepare them for life.

It astounds me that I’m still hearing right-wing, conservative-supporting dittoheads using the same lies and deceit the Harris government used all those years ago in the war they waged against education.

Let us begin with the All Powerful Imperial Greedy Teacher’s Union. Yes, you know the one. Governments quake and tremble with fear in awe of their might, falling quickly to their knees. Yes, it was the All Powerful Union that let Bob Rae take five percent of their pay. It was the same Greedy Union that let Mike Harris outlaw their collective bargaining. The same Evil Union that let its teachers’ salaries be frozen for years, not even hedged against inflation. It was the same union that let the provincial government use millions of taxpayers’ dollars to trash them with deceitful television ads and then take away their retirement benefits.

That Union? I’m sure you’ve heard of it. It’s the one that makes it impossible to ever, ever, ever fire a single bad teacher. Ever.

Whatever. Your union-bashing lies are just that: lies. I’m tired of hearing them. Get some new ones.

What’s next? How about those teachers and their summer vacations? They get two months off, don’t they?

Here’s an idea. Go to Teacher’s College and become a teacher. You know those brats you’re raising? You know how you’re so happy when school starts again because you can get rid of them? Some poor bastard has to deal with 30 of them all day long while you’re at work. If it’s high school, they deal with 90 of them, maybe more if we can’t quite keep up with teacher hiring. After teaching them for 10 months, tell me you don’t need two months to regain your sanity.

You know what happens to the teachers that don’t really like to teach but get in to teaching for the summer vacation? They get to their first summer vacation and then they quit, because they can’t hack it. One of those teachers was Mike Harris. Yeah, the very same politician who set out to destroy the public education system or, as his Minister of Education put it, “Get the government out of the education business.” Coincidence?

Let’s move on to a few lies. There was the lie they told that Ontario’s education was the most expensive in the nation on a cost-per-student basis. Why was it a lie? Because they concocted their numbers by including private school tuitions in his average. Would you call that lying? I would. How about that bit about how making every teacher do an extra class per year was only “asking for fifteen minutes a day”? News flash. A teacher with a four hour teaching schedule puts in more than an eight hour day marking and preparing for classes. If you think that the only time a teacher spends working is in the classroom with the full class present, you’re both stupid and naïve and I’ve had enough of catering to your naïveté and walking on eggshells around your stupidity.

There was a time when I wanted to be teacher. It’s a tradition in my family, going back a couple of generations. But then I learned that my employer, the government, would bizarrely be permitted to purchase television ad time to tell people that I’m lazy, overpaid and greedy while implying that I don’t care about the children I teach. Can you imagine the hatred I feel for a government – and any people who support its lies – that used my tax dollars to take out television ads to publicly trash my parents?

I’m tired of being kind to you people. I’m tired of mincing words. You’re stupid. You’ve allowed yourself to be led in to ignorance. You need to be shaken out of your comfortable, arrogant, talking-point parroting shell and told to shut up. And if you’re going to repeat those lazy, conceited, twenty-year old arguments to me? I’m going to shut you up myself.

Canada’s Third World Health Care System

2010-01-21T09:08:00.000-05:00

So a UFC star, diagnosed with a hole in his stomach (well, not quite, look up diverticulosis if you care), feels that Canada is a third world country because “They couldn’t do nothing for me”.

“It was like I was in a third world country.”

Apparently, the Canadian hospital he visited - when the symptoms he had been ignoring for some time finally got out of control – was unable to satisfy him in some way. It’s not quite clear from the article, but it sounds like the unidentified hospital in an unidentified province was able to update his diagnosis from “flu” to “mono” to “diverticulosis”.

I’m not sure though. He then claims that he had his wife drive him some 200 plus kilometres to an American hospital where they instantly made the correct diagnosis.

If I may be so bold, I might suggest that Canadian hospitals could be much more prompt if we discouraged and rejected about 12 million people from our health care system. We just don’t roll that way.

Moving on.

He says that, “… that doctor there saved my career and saved my life.”

So he visited MedCenter One in North Dakota and later went to the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota. Both of those doctors recommended surgery. But Brock didn’t want the surgery. Brock didn’t have the surgery. And Brock is now fine.

Get it? Brock is very thankful for the wonderful, amazing medical system that recommended unnecessary surgery. He doesn’t trust the third world Canadian medical system that may (or may not have?) made the correct diagnosis, but he trusts his first world medical system that wanted to do extra surgery to keep the cash rolling in.

Double standard much, Brock?

“I'm not bashing the Canadian health care”, he waffles, after bashing the Canadian health care system as “third world”. Also, “I'm not going to disclose anything”, he hedges in classic Fox News style, after making accusations that can’t be disputed by the system he’s bashing because – despite it all – we still respect him as a patient and therefore respect his confidentiality.

But maybe I shouldn’t take him so seriously: “He said he revamped his diet, prayed a lot and used some ‘natural healing medicine.’ “

Yes. Keep praying. That’s about in line with the level of logic displayed throughout this entire article.

Yes, I Want Them Humiliated

2010-01-14T09:00:00.001-05:00

So what do we do with our alleged war criminals in government?

That's what they are. The evidence from Richard Colvin and quotes from General Hillier himself indicate that officials high in our government were well aware of the treatment of Afghan prisoners. Of course, they’ve taken the black magic marker to the documents and then violated the will of the people in not releasing those documents unredacted. Then, when it got too hot, they shut down Parliament.

At least the Liberals had the courage to face their crimes, face the investigation and take their punishment.

But not the Conservatives. They’re cowards.

And let’s be clear on this. I want the politicians who are responsible to be humiliated. Because, you see, all the Liberals ever did was steal my money and, from the looks of the thing, it was a small subset of the party that did the stealing. But the Conservatives? This came from high up. They were incompetent or malicious in disregard for the treatment of prisoners and the honour of our nation.

They pissed on my flag. They pissed on our honour and our international reputation.

I still believe in the Canada that was the renowned peacekeeper of the world.

And I see these Conservative cowards, out to change Canada in to the United States, to change it in to a war monger, to destroy the honour we had in exchange for military action of dubious glory and morality. I see an Afghan prisoner afraid to tell Canadians what happened to him for fear that they would send him for more torture.

I want these people humiliated. If I could put them in stocks and parade them up and down Sussex Drive on a horse cart, I would. I would see them shamed in front of their spouses and children and grandchildren. I would see them paraded in front of every wannabe politician in the country, as if to say, “We will do this to you, too, if you ever shame us as these have shamed us.”

And, no, I don’t consider that shallow at all.

The Emperor Has Dissolved The Parliament

2010-01-01T00:46:00.003-05:00

Regional Governors now have direct control of their systems.

Fear will keep the opposition in line. Fear of ... of ... of ...

I don't know what we're afraid of. Terrorists maybe. Or the gays.

Apparently having our government turn in to a dictatorship of a minority isn't one of the things that inspires fear though.

Mealy-mouthed Traitor

2009-12-23T12:07:00.005-05:00

That's the only phrase I can think of to describe our Prime Minister.

“The allegations are not being made – I hope – against Canadian soldiers,” Mr. Harper said in a year-end interview with the French-language television network TVA. “… Our diplomats reformed the transfer system. We are speaking here of a problem among Afghans. It's not a problem between Canadians and Afghans. We're speaking of problems between the government of Afghanistan and the situation in Afghanistan. We are trying to do what's possible to improve that situation, but it's not in our control.”

First of all, no one is accusing the soldiers of anything. That apparently can't be said enough times to sink in to the thick skulls of our leading cabinet ministers. The suspicions and accusations are against the cabinet ministers for giving immoral and illegal orders.

Second, what a cowardly way to approach to the issue.

A "problem among Afghans".

Let me tell you, Mr. Harper, how this works. I shove someone at the top of a flight of stairs. As a consequence, he falls down the whole flight and breaks both his legs. Guess what? I'm legally responsible for his broken legs. You know why? Because physical damage is a reasonably predictable consequence of shoving him down those stairs. If I went before a judge and said, "All I did was shove him near the top. The rest of the problem is between him and the stairs", the judge would either laugh at me or declare me psychotic and have me institutionalized.

Of course, the difference between me and you, Mr. Harper, is that I can't violate the law and put black magic marker over all of the evidence. Boy, that must be convenient.

No, Mr. Harper, we don't accept your latest ignorant argument. We've seen the reports from Amnesty, the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission and from Richard Colvin. We've heard that soldiers had actually photographed it happening. We - the entire nation - are slowly becoming aware that you knew what was going on.

And regardless of the evidence, you kept our nation in the immoral position of handing over more prisoners to be tortured.

If those reports were available to you, and it certainly looks like they were, torture was a reasonably predictable consequence of the actions take by your government. And that would make the bunch of you war criminals.

Best of luck at the trial.

What Torture Really Means to Canada

2009-12-16T15:24:00.005-05:00

Occasionally, in the middle of all of the politicking and nonsense that goes on, one person makes a simple statement. There aren't often big words in this statement. It's rarely meant to be taken as some grand pronouncement.

But somehow, it sums up exactly what the problem is.

Today, I found that statement. It was in a letter written by Richard Colvin, the much abused diplomat who blew the whistle on the government's mishandling of prisoners detained by Canada.

It's not a Colvin quote, though. It's Colvin quoting someone else.

One detainee told Canadian monitors that at first, he did not want to tell them about having been tortured because Canadians had been responsible for his detention and therefore he did not trust them.

Remember the good old days? Remember when we thought of ourselves as the world's peacekeepers? Remembered when we were well thought of throughout the world? Remember those days?

Those days are gone. Now people who are being tortured are afraid to run to us for fear that they will be tortured even more.

Freedom of Speech vs. Bullying

2009-12-14T15:04:00.003-05:00

This decision sounds wrong.

One student made a youtube video denouncing another girl as a spoiled brat and a slut.

The victim, crying, complained to a teacher. The school took it up and had the offender suspended for two days.

The case was brought to a judge, who wrote the following:

“To allow the school to cast this wide a net and suspend a student simply because another student takes offense to their speech, without any evidence that such speech caused a substantial disruption of the school’s activities, runs afoul [of the law],’’ judge Stephen V. Wilson wrote in a 60-page opinion.

“The court cannot uphold school discipline of student speech simply because young persons are unpredictable or immature, or because, in general, teenagers are emotionally fragile and may often fight over hurtful comments,’’ he wrote.

That sounds well and good. But this isn't merely "taking offense" by one student. This is meant to attack and humiliate another student. And no one is preventing the bullying classmate from posting more screeds on the Internet. What the school is doing is making a decision regarding how students are to treat one another. Stepping outside those bounds is grounds for suspension.

I'm going to guess the judge has never been a teacher. Keeping discipline in the classroom can be difficult. The school has a right and a responsibility to keep the classroom an open and peaceful forum where every student feels welcome. This judge has now decided that schools don't have that right. In other words, even if the school knows that cruel bullying is going on, the school can't do anything about it because that would be infringing on the bully's right to be cruel.

I've said it before and I know I'll say it again: the rules are designed to protect bullies. That's because bullies are the ones with the aggressive natures that get them in to the position where they can make rules.

This situation is no different from many others throughout schools in North America.

h/t to Freddy Stubbs democratic underground.

Presumption of Guilt

2009-12-11T19:42:00.005-05:00

You know what, Mr. Harper? Mr McKay? Mr. O'Connor?

I'm going to go right ahead and assume you're guilty; that you're all war criminals. That's right. I'll say it. I'm going to right ahead and assume that you're lying, untrustworthy crooks guilty of heinous crimes and deserving of jail time.

I know what you're saying: innocent until proven guilty. That's the letter of the law, right? That's how things work in this country.

Well, apparently things have changed.

You see, there's this 15 year old kid that got arrested in Afghanistan. He's been in jail for most of a decade now without a trial. You haven't even tried to repatriate him. You just went and ahead and assumed he was guilty.

Then there was that lady, I think she was in Kenya, trying to get back to Canada. You assumed that she was an impostor and forced her to prove she was innocent. You didn't assume her innocence.

There was another guy that you let the Sudanese torture. He had to get holed up in our embassy in Sudan for months before you let him come home, even after the Sudanese had tortured him and determined - under torture - that he wasn't guilty of anything. What more could a guy do?

So you know what? If you're doing away with the presumption of innocence for other Canadians, I don't see why we should presume you're innocent.

Especially since you're hiding something. Absence of evidence is, after all, absence of evidence. I'm sure you'd agree if, say, the Liberals had tried to put black magic marker over all kinds of documents related to something like the sponsorship scandal.

And that brings me to my last point. Because the Liberals were crooked too. I won't even argue. The Liberals stole my nation's money, and that made me angry.

But you, you sons of bitches, you've stolen my nation's honour. And that makes me furious.

You're Way Too Fat

2009-12-10T08:47:00.000-05:00

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Kind of offensive, isn't it?

What if I sat next to you in a cafeteria, presuming us to be previously acquainted, and told you that you were too fat, that you were eating too much unhealthy food? What if I told you that the sight of you was so revolting that you should immediately lay off the bacon and the salad dressing? What if I started counting the rolls of fat on your stomach or the number of your chins? What if wrinkled my nose at you and told you to get some exercise?

I think we could all agree that every one of those statements would be considered offensive in our society. For whatever reason, much like the 1970s era taboo against telling smokers to frak off, we’re supposed to dance around fat people as if there’s nothing wrong with them.

But not skinny people.

You can say whatever you want about skinny people, especially children, especially if you’re related to them. Try these out for size.

“You’re too skinny. Eat more food.”
“Oh my goodness! You poor thing. Do they feed you at home? You look sick. Eat some more.”
“Look at you! I can count your ribs.”
“He’s so tiny. Have you taken him to the doctor?”
“Someone should pour fertilizer in your shoes, little guy.”

Not nearly as taboo, are they? Why is it you can ‘count my ribs’ but not your own rolls of fat? Where do we get this assumption that fat people have fragile egos and we need to dance around them? Where do we get this idea that skinny kids are expected to suck up all of the insults and destruction of their self esteem? Oh, don’t let the fat, unhealthy people have negative self images, but let’s all go to town on the healthy, skinny kid. You can trash his emotions all you want. Drive him right in to the ground.

You know what? The next person who insults a skinny kid is getting an earful from me.

Yahoo Embarrassed

2009-12-07T12:53:00.003-05:00

You would be embarrassed, too.

Yahoo has a list of services it provides to government agencies. (warning: that list may be taken down at some point). They'll provide your emails, account information, IP address you've logged in from etc. etc. And each service has a price.

This list was leaked from inside Yahoo and is now available online.

Yahoo has decided to use copyright law to make Cryptome take the document down.

This seems, to me, to be an unbearable stretch of copyright law. Copyright was intended to protect authors from having people copy their works and resell them without paying royalties. Copyright law was not intended to let corporations keep their businesses secret.

The telling point comes in part of the takedown notice as quoted at Wired.com.

“Therefore, release of Yahoo!’s information is reasonably likely to lead to impairment of its reputation for protection of user privacy and security, which is a competitive disadvantage for technology companies,” the company added.

Paraphrasing: Don't tell the truth about us. Our customers won't like it.

If the truth is going to impair your reputation, you really shouldn't be complaining about the messenger. But then, Yahoo is a corporation, so what else should one expect?

Universal Completion

2009-12-02T15:31:00.003-05:00

There is a group of people that thinks the world will end in 2012. Some people believe in such end dates and the idea that the universe will stop existing or fall in to some kind of Armageddon/Rapture at some predestined point in time (I think the JWs had it pegged in 1925, then 1974, 1978 and some time in the 90s).

I am not one of those people.

I believe, rather, that a certain number of events must occur and a certain number of objects must be fashioned. When all of those events have happened and all of these objects exist, only then can the universe close itself up and cease to be.

Some of these things can be predicted in advance: for example, I don't see how the universe can close up until we have a sensible theory of quantum gravity and a Crash Test Dummies cover of The Gambler.

Other things, like a fully automatic, tripod mounted, belt fed Nerf machine gun, could not be predicted in advance. Nonetheless, in hindsight, such a thing is absolutely pivotal to finishing our universe.

Today I discovered something just like the Nerf machine gun. Something that, in retrospect, now seems absolutely, in a blisteringly obvious way, crucial to any declaration that the universe has fulfilled its potential and can just quit now because there's nothing else worth doing.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you, "Shakira covering Back in Black":

Wait Just a Minute, Mr. Hillier

2009-11-30T13:46:00.008-05:00

General, I'm having a hard time understanding your statements about what you knew about torture in Afghanistan.

On the one hand, we have these quotes from General Hillier:

The former general, who was Canada's top soldier during Colvin's posting in Afghanistan in 2006-07, said he has reread all of the diplomat's widely circulated reports to ensure that Colvin's alleged concerns did not escape his notice the first time around.

"There was simply nothing there," Hillier told a House of Commons committee on Afghanistan. "There was nothing there to warrant the intervention of the chief of defence staff."

So the General is telling us that there was never anything in those reports that amounted to torture. As far as he knew, there was no torture taking place. Nada. No need for anyone to take action.

Then what's this stuff doing in his book:

Rick Hillier, when he was Chief of the Defence Staff, says he kept his political masters fully informed about the harsh conditions of detainees in Afghan prisons, even though Prime Minister Stephen Harper and cabinet ministers claim they were told nothing.

In Spring 2007, The Globe and Mail reported on allegations of abuse of detainees in Afghan prisons. Mr. Hillier acknowledged that was to be expected.

"Their judicial and prison systems were still somewhat nascent, and there was always some risk that abuse could occur," he wrote.

... "we lost confidence that basic, responsible measures were in place to ensure the humane treatment of prisoners."

Throughout the process, Mr. Hillier writes, the federal government was kept fully informed of the military's handling of prisoners, which contradicts statements from the Prime Minister's Office.

So if we put that all together, there was nothing that made General Hillier worry about torture happening, and of course he kept the politicians in Ottawa informed of the torture.

In other words, if I may paraphrase: "I was unaware that a buck needed passing, but I passed the buck right quick."

Dubai's Debt: A Proposal

2009-11-27T09:19:00.004-05:00

From the Globe and Mail:
"the emirate revealed this week it was asking for a six-month reprieve on paying its bills."

I say, "No problem, Dubai. We can work together on this.".

First of all, you can have six months with no payments on your $60 billion debt.

There will be a 5% administrative fee of $3 billion dollars.

Collection agents will be monitoring you for the next six months, calling you at all hours of the night to remind you that you're a dead beat.

Your interest rate will be 28.5% for the next six months, but as long as you pay back all $60 billion on the billing date (please allow three days for electronic transactions) you will only have to pay the administrative fee.

Failure to ensure that we receive all $60 billion by the due date will result in a charge of six months of 28.5% interest on the entire $60 billion (not just the unpaid portion), compounded monthly. The interest rate on any unpaid portion after that date will be 35.7%, compounded daily, in addition to a monthly 5% administrative fee on any unpaid portion.

Like I said: I'm sure we can work this out in a fair manner.

Shorter Hillier: The Dead Didn't Tell Me

2009-11-25T21:51:00.003-05:00

From CP and Globe and Mail:

"Hillier told a special Commons committee Wednesday that the reports by Richard Colvin in 2006 wouldn't have been passed to him because they contained only second-hand information"

Second-hand?

I suppose that, if a guy were killed through torture, Hillier would demand that the dead guy come forward and say so himself. These things are second hand by nature. The question is whether or not all of the second hand reports are corroborating.

He also finds it unrealistic that all detainees are tortured in Afghanistan. He says he would disregard any report that made that claim and that Colvin's report made that claim. "How ludicrous a claim is that?"

I guess it is ludicrous unless you listen to those bleeding hearts at Amnesty International.

"Reports of torture, ill-treatment and arbitrary arrest are so widespread in detention centres ... that Amnesty International wants NATO troops in Afghanistan to stop handing prisoners over to authorities there."

Frankly, I can't give a fig over Hillier. I don't care to go after people in the military. They were put in a terrible position and given few options. I'm after the bastards, Liberal and Conservative, who put them there in the first place and have kept them there since. I'm after the ministers who knew - or should have know if they were reading their memos - that torture was taking place. I'm after the people who gave the orders to let our nation continue to be an accessory to that torture.

They Ought To Push a Law Against Premarital Sex

2009-11-23T21:03:00.003-05:00

Seriously. A Congressman in the U.S. was (not quite) excommunicated because he took the position that abortion ought to remain legal.

Church asks Kennedy to forego Communion.

In case you're not a Christian, here's how it works: symbolically eating Jesus gets you in to heaven; not symbolically eating Jesus means you can't go to heaven; if you're Catholic, it's not symbolic, you're really eating Jesus. Communion is where you eat a cracker and pretend really, really hard that it's Jesus.

So the Catholic Church is upset that Kennedy supports abortion rights and wants to keep him from eating Jesus because the Catholic Church thinks abortion is murder and murder is a sin.

There's a problem, though. (Okay, there are lots of problems, but let's focus on just one).

What if all the Congresspeople simply didn't pass any legislation pertaining to abortion? What if no bills were ever even raised? Wouldn't the Church have to excommunicate all of the Catholic legislators for the sin of not even trying?

I'd think so, just in the name of ethical consistency (not the Church's strong suit, I admit).

The Church also believes that premarital sex is a sin. Should not the Church also be cracking down on any Congressperson who isn't actively trying to pass bills to ban premarital sex?

I don't see that happening though. Know why?

Because it would be stupid, that's why, and people don't like being laughed at.

Evil Muslims: What the Media Won't Tell You!

2009-11-12T21:15:00.003-05:00

I got in to this discussion about the Fort Hood killings. Apparently the media are hopelessly remiss in not telling us how the Islam is the religion of evil. Heck, just look at the Koran (or Qu'ran, but let's not get all "literate")! Evil!

Sure, whatever. I have no doubt that, being a religion, it's full of hateful stuff: genocide; murder; rape; whatever. I can say the same thing about the Christian bible and that whole "Judeo-Christian" philosophy that some people think exists.

So why doesn't the media tell us how evil Islam is?

Well, first of all, it does. Second of all, it does tone it down a bit. There are two reasons for this

1) We've been trained to have a completely unreasonable reticence about criticizing religion. "Hm, a fourteen year old girl is pregnant and claims to be a virgin ... that's, um, totally reasonable." Somehow, it's acceptable for religious people to spout off the most ridiculous notions and it's taboo for the rest of us to call them on it.

2) The United States already has a lot of simmering anti-muslim attitude. Remember on September 12 when Sikhs were getting beaten up? Double-plus ignorance with a backflip, Batman.

The problem is not Islam or Christianity or Judaism or any other religion. The problem is that the people who devote themselves to these religions do so and abrogate their own moral filters. What do I mean?

The bible says to kill homosexuals. Do you? No, you don't.
The bible says to kill witches. Do you? No, you don't.
The bible says not to wear mixed fabrics. Do you? All the time.

See how that works? If your religious text tells you to do something completely stupid and immoral, you ignore it. You still call yourself Jewish, Muslim or Christian, but you don't obey the stupid, immoral rules. There's a bit of cognitive dissonance, but you can live with that. You've been trained to believe that your religion is right, but you have a moral centre which prevents you from blanking out.

Some people don't have that moral centre. Some people blank right out and do whatever their priest, imam or rabbi tells them their holy book says. Go smash a plane in to a building. Drive Magog and Gog out of the Middle East. Seize the Promised Land. Help the Jews seize the Promised Land so Jesus can return.

All of those examples are stupid and immoral and yet many, many people support the stupidity and immorality. That's what religion does. It tells you to obey without thinking. And that's where I disagree that humanism falls in with other religions. If a humanist leader told his followers to strap on suicide bombs, he would be turned over to a psychiatric hospital.

So rant on all you want about the evils of Islam. Hell, I might even agree with you on some of the finer points. But really, there's nothing especially evil about it that I can't find in any other mainstream religion.

Those Awful New Atheists

2009-11-05T12:36:00.004-05:00

Frank Schaeffer, former fundamentalist, is angry about the "New" Atheists, who have a level of fundamentalism that he feels is on the level of Pat Robertson (lesbians caused 9/11) and Ted Haggard (anti-gay rights gay hypocrite).

The leaders of this movement make loud, repeated, and bold claims about atheism being better and more moral, more ethical, and a vastly improved alternative to religion.

The difference between the bold claims of atheists and the bold claims of christians is that the atheists can actually back theirs up. The christians have a book that advises wholesale slaughter of enemies and their children and the willingness to sacrifice one's own son to please one's deity.

Atheists can actually point to a thing called "humanism" for guidance in moral matters.

If we are to dismiss Christianity and other religions partly because of the likes of Oral Roberts, Ted Haggard, and their shenanigans -

You may as well stop right there. I don't dismiss Christianity because of the immoral acts of its followers. I dismiss it because a) it's factually incorrect and b) it encourages immorality. Whether or not atheists are mean people has nothing to do with whether they're right. And since atheism has no dogma, you can't claim that it has a dogma that causes atheists to be immoral. The argument doesn't wash, so don't bother.

Mostly Schaeffer seems to be annoyed that atheists are declaring their opinions stridently, selling t-shirts with those opinions printed on them, and getting other people to stop following religions.

Schaeffer goes on for a long time about all of Richard Dawkins' sins, but none of them seem to me to be on the level of the divorce from moral reality that comes from adhering to the doctrine of a religion. There's nothing in my appreciation of Richard Dawkins (or any other atheist's appreciation) that would lead us to obey Dawkins if he were to tell us to - for example - smash a plane in to a building, shoot a gynecologist, deny condoms to starving, diseased people or blame a terrorist act on completely unrelated gays and lesbians or women wearing pants.

That's just not our thing. You see, atheism relies on reason.

In a nutshell:

If Richard Dawkins becomes demented and tries to get his followers to do something vile or insane, they will balk. Can you say that for the followers of Pat Robertson and Ted Haggard? No, you can't.

h/t to the PZ.

That's A Lot Of Credulity

2009-10-22T08:37:00.003-04:00

I mean, wow.

This is a lot like that time I was traveling through Chicago and overheard an American soldier in O'Hare airport tell his compatriot, "We saved their asses in world war II, why ain't they helping us in Iraq!?"

I mean, sure, I knew that this sentiment existed, but it's still a shock to hear it expressed.

But this particular thread is full of ignorant, naive people claiming to have experienced ghosts. Now I know that Huffington Post is a gathering place for all kinds of woo, from the anti-vaccination crowd to homeopaths, but it's still powerfully strange to see so many of these people in one place. It's enough to make me fear for humanity.

There are no ghosts. There's never been any convincing evidence for ghosts. They either turn out to be the result of pranksters (think "crop circles"), the result of dreams or hallucinations (especially the night-time experiences) or outright fraud (the medium who kicks the table). No one has ever presented any evidence that could withstand the light of scientific examination.

I know. The pro-ghost faction are now going to say I'm closed-minded. I'm too skeptical. "Science doesn't know everything" or "Science use to think 'x', you know!" where 'x' is some old belief that has since been corrected. Of course science doesn't know everything, but it is the best technique we have for examining positive claims.

You claim that ghosts exist. You claim that they frequent certain places. So we examine those places for the signs you claim to see. And we find nothing.

Now realize you've been credulous and naive and find something better to do with your time.

Got You Now, You Evil Lying Bastards

2009-10-21T10:35:00.006-04:00

Got you good.

The only question is if the public will care.

Will we care about the fact that our government is made up of evil, lying, self-serving bastards who were a party to torture and crimes? Will we care as much about morals as we did about the petty dollars and cents involved in the sponsorship scandal?

I hope so.

Rick Hillier, when he was Chief of the Defence Staff, says he kept his political masters fully informed about the harsh conditions of detainees in Afghan prisons, even though Prime Minister Stephen Harper and cabinet ministers claim they were told nothing.

Evil. Lying. Bastards.

I mince no words. Not now. Not in this.

The "Harper government" told every enemy of Canada that it's okay to treat our soldiers as we treated our enemy's soldiers. That's what they're doing. They're taking away our moral high ground and endangering our soldiers. And they're responsible for torturing human beings.

"There are hundreds if not thousands of documents, reporters, memos, advice that come through all departments," Mr. MacKay told reporters outside the House of Commons.
"The fact that one report or a series of reports weren't read by a minister or a deputy minister shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone."

Condoleezza much, Peter? I know you hung around with her a bit, so this might seem nostalgic for you:

"I believe the memo was entitled 'Bin Laden determined to attack inside U.S.'."

Nothing to worry about there, obviously.

We're done with you people. We're done with your lying, your discrimination, your war-mongering, your America-envy, your lethal deregulation. We're done with you.

I only hope that my estimation of my fellow citizens' morals is accurate and they've seen enough to be done with you, too.

Police Officers Are Perfect

2009-10-19T16:19:00.003-04:00

In fact, they're inhuman machines of perfection who never, ever allow their emotions to prevent them from acting in the exactly perfect, moral, legal manner in which they've been trained.

Or so the spokesman for the Ontario Police College would have you believe:

A spokesman said officers are trained to handle arrests in a professional manner, regardless of circumstance.

"The presence or absence of cellphone recording or other recording equipment is not relevant," the spokesman said.

That's right. Unlike the rest of us human beings, police officers behave exactly the same way whether you're watching them or not. And they never, ever lie about it either.

Police officers are amazing.

Sigh. The "Domino" Effect?

2009-10-16T08:03:00.002-04:00

Retired Major General Lewis MacKenzie has some advice on Afghanistan. "Don't leave, because the commies ... er, the Taliban will spread."

They'll take over Pakistan, apparently, and seize the nuclear arsenal. This would cause the whole word to explode, starting with India and spreading to Russia and China.

You'll have to pardon me if don't jump at this. This was the same crap they peddled in Vietnam and all that did was get a lot of people killed. The Taliban were - globally speaking - harmless religious idiots who mostly tortured their own people (especially their women). Much to everyone's surprise, bombing the country did not improve this situation. The Taliban are not Al-qaeda and, as MacKenzie admits, would not welcome Al-qaeda back.

MacKenzie's major argument is that the Taliban would be frighteningly unstable at the helm of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. While I'm sure that it is frightening, it might do us well to remember this quote from guy who was in charge of the world's largest nuclear arsenal for eight years running:

“Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East…. The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled…. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.”

Yeah, that was Bush.

So even the craziest religious fanatics, in charge of the world's largest supply of nukes, don't use them. Even assuming the Taliban could get hold of Pakistan's nukes, which is a lot of assuming, there's no reason to assume they'd be stupider or more fanatical than George Bush was.

Sorry, General, I'm not buying it.

We went in to Afghanistan to secure a natural gas and oil pipeline, despite the lies told to the soldiers and the citizens of Canada. We're staying there to continue to secure that pipeline, despite the new, deceptive rationale you're peddling.

Bring our soldiers home, now, and stop trying to deceive us.

Banning Burqas? No.

2009-10-08T10:59:00.005-04:00

No. That's not Canada's job.

I agree that the burqa is a backwards, ancient, misogynistic piece of clothing. I agree that it places the responsibility for sexuality on a woman rather than sharing that responsibility.

I agree with pretty much every feminist who says the burqa is a bad idea and that the world will be a better place when women don't feel obliged to wear it - either out of religious need, fear of punishment or to protect themselves from the eyes of potential rapists.

But we're not going to make a law against it. Forget it. Even at the behest of progressive Muslims, we're not going to outlaw it.

Canada is a a free country. You wear what you like as long as it isn't dangerous. Until we have giant burqa crime-sprees there's no need to outlaw burqas as a security risk. Society has no right or reason to interfere here.

The best quote is the simplest one, that comes at the end of the article.

[Mr. Elmasry] believes those women should have the freedom to decide whether they wish to cover their faces, and that a ban would limit freedom of expression.

It's not for you and me to decide.”

You can close the case right there.

Prostitution: Let It Be

2009-10-06T10:11:00.002-04:00

When the issue of prostitution comes up, I have to be consistent and apply the same logic that I apply to abortion: it’s her body; it’s her choice. If a woman (and it's mostly women) chooses – freely chooses – to sell sex, then she should be able to do so.

Society can intervene. I don’t want to mince words here. If some obvious and gigantically disastrous outcome were a direct result of prostitution, I could see that the rest of us would have a voice. You can’t run your prostitution outfit where it’s likely to attract minors. You can’t recruit prostitutes with drugs and alcohol. You have the same zoning restrictions that apply to everyone else.

But as it is, the disastrous outcomes are entirely on the side of Canada’s present set of laws which try to confuse and befuddle prostitution in to non-existence, but fail miserably. These laws only serve to force prostitutes in to the most dangerous situations. By outlawing safe forms of communicating for the purposes of prostitution and by prohibiting “bawdy” houses, women are forced out in to the streets, unprotected against unscrupulous customers

But the Crown wants you to believe something:

They also contend that prostitution is inherently degrading and unhealthy…

That’s a lot like saying that homosexuality is inherently unhealthy because homosexuals often get beaten up and set on fire. The problem in that case is society’s attitude. In the case of prostitution, it’s the laws that make it dangerous.

Laura Holland, of the Aboriginal Women’s Action Network, tells us:

“If you view prostitution as violence against women, as we do, you understand you can't make violence safer”

In order to view prostitution as inherently violent, we would have to view sex as inherently violent, view purchasing things as inherently violent or imagine that the two somehow magically become violent when tied together. The violence can be all but eliminated if we choose to make it safe. That’s the whole point.

In a way, that too makes me think of abortion. If you look at the horrific results of illegalizing abortions (namely: various home-abortion techniques) and you look at the horrific results of street prostitution (namely: beatings and serial killings), you can see the similarity.

And lastly, even if it were a good idea to stop prostitution, there remains one simple fact: we can’t.

We’ve tried it for thousands of years. Every force of logic, religion, social custom, physical punishment (up to and including death) has been tried. Nothing prevents the kind of demand that the sex drive brings from finding a willing supplier. There’s no point trying to stop it. All we’re doing is hurting people – mostly poor women.

It’s time to grow out of our puritanical, religious roots and start applying reason and logic to this profession. It’s time to respect the people involved as human beings – even if you don’t agree with them – and let them do what they want.

Catholics Fire Transgendered Teacher

2009-10-03T00:06:00.004-04:00

Of course it's wrong to fire someone for that.

It's also wrong for a public institution to fire people for:
a) living with a boyfriend or girlfriend before marriage
b) being gay
c) not going to church often enough
d) being the member of the wrong kind of church
e) not having your children baptized Catholic

But as far as I can tell, the permission that the province has granted the Catholic Church to control a publicly funded education system includes the permission to discriminate in hiring and firing practices.

They can discriminate against you and you have no recourse.

The problem isn't the Church. I expect ignorant, deluded, power-hungry idiots to behave this way just to avoid the cognitive dissonance of having reason and logic invade their rose-tinted bubble.

The problem is that we allow them to control public education and allow them to educate people on our dime. If we continue to allow this, everything they do is in our name. If we continue to fund them, their cruelties, discriminations and other abuses become our fault.

End this stupid farce.

Take the power of public education away from the Church. Take away their funding.

Bank Woes: Quantum Mechanics vs. Nanotech

2009-09-30T13:46:00.001-04:00

Seriously, the banks are complaining because of the rules being imposed on them for credit card statements.

The only question is: should I play my Quantum State violin or my nanotechnology violin? Which one is smaller?

We're Winning

2009-09-28T11:51:00.003-04:00

The Catholic Church is closing three churches in Ottawa.

I won't pretend I'm jumping with glee or anything, just smiling and nodding in appreciation of a population that is slowing wising up to reality.

Of course we're also getting in to more "New Age" nonsense to backfill for the people who apparently have some kind of supernatural void when religion is taken away, and it does lead to the death of innocents occasionally, but closing churches will always make me hopeful.

“When I was a kid, you never missed a weekend church service. You just had to be there. Today there are hardly any kids going to church. Families used to have six or seven kids, but not anymore.”

Well, that really tells the whole story, doesn't it?

The church used to work pretty hard at opposing birth control; hard enough that their parishioners really didn't use birth control. By 1982, 91% of Catholics were actually okay with using birth control. In 2005, in the U.S. 75% of Catholics felt the Church should change its position. The Church won't, naturally. And now the demographic is playing out. People are having two or three kids instead of seven or eight.

Worse yet is the tendency in modern times to reduce the strictness of child raising. Children, even at very young ages, are not forced to go to church. They're given the choice. And a lot of them say, no, I'd rather sleep in.

Quite simply, the Catholic Church no longer has the frightening stranglehold of "The Devil Will Get You" that it used to have and its parishioners have wandered in to rationality.

It's a lot like third world countries, really. If we would just stop propping up crazy right-wing dictators, they actually do quite well all by themselves. By the same token, former Catholic families quickly become non-religious if they aren't constantly brainwashed.

Score one for the good guys.

The Horrors of Socialism: An Open Letter to Americans

2009-09-25T09:24:00.002-04:00

I want to write now directly to the American people. I want to warn our neighbours to the south about the horrors of adopting a Socialist system. I want to tell them about the horrific nature of things they can’t understand. I want them to know the consequences of electing Barack Obama.

First of all, you will be surprised to see how the insidious tendrils of Socialism will penetrate to every facet of life. In Canada, we have Socialized nearly everything in the name of, “quality of life” and “health” and “equality”.

For instance, unlike everywhere in America where people rightfully pay to have their houses doused with water when they catch on fire, the Socialist Fire Department of Canada comes to house and business fires and puts them out. Sometimes they take up to ten minutes to reach the scene and, in a move destructive to the righteous philosophy of capitalism, many of the firefighters are volunteers.

I know. Earth shattering isn’t it? Take a minute to catch your breath before going on.

We don’t have a lot of mercenaries in our country either. The Socialist Police Department collectively (I know, it makes me gag, too) protects everyone, equally, and never charges money to the victims of crime. The only people who pay money are the perpetrators of crimes and that only happens after they go through a trial.

Take a deep breath. I have to explain to you about our Socialist Book Network. We have these buildings scattered throughout our country called “libraries” that are maintained through tax dollars. There you can get books free just by providing identification. You have to return them, though, and there are often “waiting lists” to get some books. You’ll notice when you visit Canada that this has destroyed the private book industry completely.

I’ll let you finish retching, because it gets worse. This is the part that directly affects you, so take a deep, deep breath so you can read it.

Our entire medical and hospital system is Socialized. It’s governed by a ministry with the clever name “Health Canada” so that anyone who is upset about it can be accused of being an unpatriotic traitor. It’s horrific. I’ll give you an example:

Four years ago, my father had a horrible heart problem. He found himself suddenly weak and nearing death. My mother helped him in to their vehicle and whipped him over to the hospital. There a doctor – without having to check with my dad’s insurance company – diagnosed my father with clogged up arteries. The government paid for the entire examination and the clot-busting drugs that were used on him.

The only people who made money off this transaction were the doctors, nurses and receptionists who directly interacted with my father. Don’t you get it? This system is doomed! How can a system of health work if there are no shareholders demanding a profit? How can the efficiency of the system improve if completely unrelated people aren’t demanding more and more money for their invested dollars?

My father was taken by a Socialized Public Ambulance to another hospital where a cardiac surgeon waited. By 6pm on the day of his near-death, he was under the knife for triple bypass surgery. During the surgery, the surgeon discovered that the fourth artery was also nearly clogged and she performed a fourth bypass. She did not stop during the surgery to seek additional approval from anyone. Her expert opinion was enough.

I can only imagine the pasty-white look of horror on your face. She could go and do an extra bypass because she thought it was best for her patient? And no one made money off my father’s illness? No profit, anywhere? How can you Canadians even run an economy like this? And really, waiting six hours for a quadruple bypass? I’m sure the waiting times for a retired teacher in his sixties are so much shorter in your country. I’m embarrassed to even mention that part of it.

And to think, no one even weighed his life. No one looked at his salary or his pension to decide if maybe a retired teacher hadn’t contributed as much to society as, say, a CEO or banking executive had. No one considered that maybe my father wasn’t worth saving. They just fixed him because Socialism says that, “Every Life is of Equal Value.”.

I write this letter not to disparage my own country. We are too far gone down the path of Socialism. There’s no hope for us. But you! You I can save from this horror. Keep the profit motive in your health system. Keep judging people by their salaries. Don’t let Socialism ruin the beautiful, efficient system you have!

Greg.

Autism: Science vs. Ignoramuses

2009-09-23T09:27:00.005-04:00

According to the Ottawa Citizen, the H1N1 vaccine has "stirred the debate" over the link between autism and vaccines.

Really?

Let's examine this debate. On the one side we have Canada's chief public health officer, Dr. David Butler-Jones:

"The studies have been pretty clear and consistent that vaccination is not the cause of many of the things that have been claimed around the vaccine," he said.

And there's this from Health Canada:

Misconception: Vaccines are linked to chronic diseases such as autism, multiple sclerosis (MS), and Crohn's disease.
The Facts: These are false claims made by anti-vaccine books and Web sites. Recent research using the best scientific methods, and reviews of studies from around the world, provide strong evidence that ...

I could go on and on. The side telling you that vaccines are safe and one of the greatest tools of modern medicine is the side that does scientific research and that has your interests at heart. They're the educated, intelligent, careful people.

On the other side is Jenny McCarthy and her band of technical illiterates. Jenny is mad and has decided, in the face of all evidence, that vaccines made her son autistic. She and others like her have forced the scientific establishment to prove relentlessly something that was already beyond a reasonable doubt: vaccines have no relationship to autism.

But that's not how the Citizen paints it. There are "two sides" to this debate. And the Citizen is going to tell you both of them.

The theory that childhood vaccines are behind an upsurge of autism cases emerged in the 1990s and in recent years has gained high-profile advocates such as Hollywood star Jenny McCarthy

That's not a theory. It's completely unfair to use scientific language to make stupid, illiterate, many-times debunked claims sound scientific. A "theory" in science is an explanation for a body of facts. The anti-vaccination crowd has no facts. There's no correlation between vaccines and autism. There's nothing to explain. Their "theory" is an explanation for something that doesn't exist.

I could as easily have a "theory" on how to keep leprechauns from stealing your vegetables. Until someone finds leprechauns in their garden, it's not a theory.

The Citizen ought to be blisteringly excoriated for this pathetic attempt to stoke a controversy and for its endangerment of the general health of the public.

Curious Decision: Abusive Husband gets Alimony

2009-09-23T09:12:00.002-04:00

You'd think that this would be an exception to the rule.

I'm all for consistent application of the law across genders. If a woman can cheat on her husband and get support payments while the divorce is pending, so should a man. But does that law really, as the judge suggests, extend to making death threats to your spouse and committing assault?

The assault is not in question. The man received a suspended sentence and was ordered not to come anywhere near his wife and children (the divorce is still pending). But the judge in this case ruled that his conduct wasn't relevant at this point.

Mind you, once they hit the actual divorce trial, his assault will come in to play - just as infidelity or other "misconduct" would.

But it still seems unjust and damn strange that the law compels someone to pay $6000 every month to the a guy who threatened to kill her. Note that he might not have actually laid a hand on her. If the writer is using the legal definition of "assault", it might mean that he only threatened her. As if that matters.

The judge didn't seem to like making the ruling, noting that it was a matter of principle and that the whole thing should get ironed out at the divorce trial. In the mean time, somewhat passive-aggressively, the judge increased the child support Mr. Takhar must pay to his wife by $1000/month.

Now I'm Defending Religious Expression

2009-09-22T11:10:00.004-04:00

Of course I am.

You've got the right to express your religion in your self-employed, private workplace. I can't imagine it any other way.

Apparently this secular Jewish fellow can't, though, according to Montreal bylaws.

I'm not a big fan of religion. It reeks of despotism and mindless obedience. But if you're choosing to be mindlessly obedient, that's your thing. As long as you stop swinging your fists at my face and your mezuzah isn't a fire hazard, it's really none of my business how you waste your time.

He hangs family pictures and religious/cultural artifacts around his cab. A Christian will hang rosary beads around his mirror. A Hindu, Muslim and Sikh are welcome to do the same as long as they're following laws about keeping the road visible from the driver's seat. Followers of the IPU can hang punctured red socks.

I can't imagine that this "Montreal bylaw" which says cabbies can't have objects or inscriptions in their cabs that are "not required for the taxi to be in service." could possibly be constitutional.

If he were a public servant, employed by the government, I could see invoking a rule.

If he were posting religious passages demanding the death or mutilation of others, I could see invoking a rule.

But in his cab? His private cab? Tiny, religiously inspired texts calling down blessing of protection?

No. There's no need to push this guy around.

The NDP Need To Pick a Side, huh?

2009-09-21T14:55:00.004-04:00

That's what Ignatieff told us.

It seems like a stupid thing to say, but it's not the first.

The retort is blatantly simple. The "sides" in this discussion are not "conservative politicians" and "liberal politicians". One does not choose "sides" between two sets of elites.

The side that the NDP has taken is that of the recently unemployed, the victims of the banking shenanigans that caused the economic mess in which we find ourselves. They took the side of some of the worse off.

Maybe it's not a side that entered in to Mr. Ignatieff's thoughts. Maybe he's a little too mired in politics to realize that he's supposed to be on the side of the people, not the side of a political party.

Mr. Layton's move was surely calculated. I'm sure polls and party financing entered in to it. To pretend otherwise is naive. These things are always calculated.

But in this case he did pick a side: the side of people. It may mean voting with the Liberal Party - occasionally. It may mean voting with the Conservative party - somewhat less frequently. But straying from one party to another doesn't mean he doesn't have a philosophical guideline, which seems to be Ignatieff's implication.

Nice try, Iggy. Better luck next time.

I Don't Remember Voting For Your God

2009-09-18T14:04:00.002-04:00

There's a pretty strong contradiction there, isn't there, when you're listening to the Right Wing?

Mostly I'm talking about the conservative U.S., but you get it in Canada too.

On the one hand, we should be out there bringing democracy to the unenlightened. On the other hand, we're supposed to obey the religious edicts of their particular creed: no sex before marriage; no contraception; no abortion; crosses everywhere; evangelization. The list could go on.

If you read those posters at the anti-Obama rallies (and I'm talking about the crazy tea-baggers) you see a combination of people demanding their rights and people demanding that Christianity come to the forefront.

Obama is a Marxist, Muslim, Fascist thug! That's anti-democractic! He's taking our freedom! He's taken our rights! (not that we could name one of the rights he's taken) Now let us pray to Jesus and obey the bible-god thingie instead!

They don't actually want freedom. Religion and especially religious obedience are the antithesis of freedom.

I didn't vote for their god.

I don't even remember having an election.

He seems to be running the show though, and in an extremely undemocratic fashion.

The guy sounds like a Marxist, Communist, Fascist thug to me.

So Long, Mary

2009-09-17T22:42:00.003-04:00

And to answer a few questions:

You just called him a man, so "zero".
Probably not even one. They get tired quick.
The cannonballs will always fly. Sad, but true.

The life expectancy of a mountain varies with glaciation, tectonic uplift and rainfall.
Some people live their whole lives in slavery.
People can ignore reality for a long time. We like to think they confront it on their deathbeds.

Once. I mean, really, the sky's right there.
Again, one ear should be enough.
Sadly, it takes far too many deaths before people grow sick of it.

Maybe we'll stick with Puff, the magic dragon.

The Old "Dysfunctional Parliament" Gambit

2009-09-14T08:46:00.003-04:00

This time, it's John Ibbitson parroting the party line.

Mr. Ibbitson can't believe we're about to have our fifth election in six years. He also insinuates that we're some kind of banana republic.

Why would we have another election? "Employment Insurance reform? Come on.", he pleads. I presume Mr. Ibbitson has secure employment. Someone standing on the other side of that issue might have a different opinion.

Then he offers us quotes from various sources that blame the dysfunctionality of Parliament on all parties:

"We are in a continuous election campaign with no discussion of issues"

I wonder if that has anything to do with a Prime Minister too busy with name-calling (Socialist! Separatist!) to have a serious discussion.

Major concerns ... languish, as the parties use Parliament for an elaborate and futile game of political chicken.

Indeed. Let's blame all parties for the Conservative's disruptive "point of order", "showing up at the wrong time" and "walking out of meetings" strategies.

Now some statistics:

From 1969 to 1973, Parliament sat, on average, 163 days a year. From 2004 to 2008, it was down to 105.

I have a word for you: "Prorogue". As in, "The Prime Minister prorogued Parliament". How many days did we lose there? How many days did we lose because the Prime Minister broke his own election law and called an extra election?

But, of course, it's the fault of all parties, isn't it, Mr. Ibbitson?

"Parliament as an instrument is not being used properly either by the opposition or the government."

Yes, yes. Blame everyone for the intentional mangling and disabling of our government. Whatever you do, don't investigate what's actually happening on a day-to-day basis.

The nineties also witnessed the rise of the Bloc Quebecois and the threat of Quebec separation.

Now you're just being intentionally stupid. What planet are you from that you think the 90s were unique in the spectre of separation? In fact, that decade probably saw the end of separation when Parizeau gave his famous tirade about immigrants ruining his version of Quebec's destiny.

There follows some nonsense about the federal political parties becoming "regional". They're not. Even where one party appears to take a whole province, you'll find that, in many ridings, the other parties aren't far behind. If the conservative bastion of Alberta distributed its 28 ridings proportionally, it would have come out something like [Con:18, NDP:4, Lib:3, Green:3].

Ibbitson ends his column with the following pronouncement:

Party leaders must look at each other as legitimate representatives of sectional interests whose needs deserve to be accommodated. That is no easy concession in any Parliament, and especially difficult to imagine in this one.

It seems that every political party does this, Mr. Ibbitson, except the Conservatives. Paul Martin reached a compromise with the Conservatives to maintain his government. When the Conservatives tried to pull the plug, he created a new consensus with the NDP (Egad! The Socialists! Lock up your children!) When the Conservatives came in, they tried to take all public financing away - retroactively - from the other parties. They vilified their opponents with name-calling. They stormed out of committees and disrupted them with loud-mouth tactics.

We already have three parties in Parliament that understand the need to build consensus in a grown up manner.

And we have one group of pouting children. Call it like it is. Enough of this false notion that everyone shares the blame for the Conservatives' petulance.

Conservatives: Party of the Wealthy

2009-09-12T17:41:00.007-04:00

In case there was any doubt in your minds, in case anyone was still confused about Stephen Harper's loyalty, in case a sliver of wonder existed in the Canadian psyche, you can put all that aside.

The Conservatives are going to hike E.I. premiums to help cover the federal deficit.

Now I know everyone hates the GST. But the fact is that a value added tax is one of the fairest ways to collect taxes. It hits the rich and the poor at the same rate. It applies to what you buy and doesn't care if you earned that money through capital gains or by working for a living. It only makes an exception for food and children's clothing and the like, to take the burden off lower income families.

Value added taxes are fair.

Therefore, Stephen Harper wants to reduce them. He wants the burden to be on income taxes where his wealthy friends can hide their incomes in stock options, capital gains and all sorts of schemes that I can't even personally describe.

"But come on, Greg", you're probably saying, "He lowered a tax that everybody hates, right?"

Maybe. But remember how the Martin government wanted to lower the tax rate on the poorest in the country via cutting income taxes? Remember how the Tories opposed that move in favour of GST cut? That tells you a story right there, doesn't it? Cut the GST for the rich while keeping the income tax rate higher for the poor. If you're a rich guy buying a yacht, you're very happy with the GST cut. The income tax cut barely affects you.

And now this. Let's crank up the E.I. rate. Employment Insurance is a very special kind of tax, isn't it? It stops applying to your income once you hit about $40k. It's a very regressive tax, meaning that it affects the working poor more than the rich.

Are we done with this story now? Can we stop pretending there's a "he said, she said" going on with who supports working families the most? Can we call a spade and spade and simply say that the Conservatives don't give a damn about your family and are selling this country to their wealthy party donors?

You know what? I think we can.

Tell you what, Mr. Prime Minister. The current E.I. rate is 1.73% on the first $42 300 a person earns. You can raise the E.I. rate on one condition: instead of stopping at $42 300 and having that be the end, you can raise the rate as long as you start a new bracket somewhere in the $250 000 range where people will start paying 1.73% again.

That ought to lick this "deficit problem" you're having.

Frightening: Coalition

2009-09-11T10:19:00.002-04:00

Look out, here comes a boogeyman!

It's a good thing Stephen Harper is there to warn us that if he doesn't get a majority and rule over us for five years of tyranny, we may end up with a coalition representing a majority of the population!

Noooooooooo!

My Employee said to Your Employer

2009-09-09T11:21:00.005-04:00

I'm gonna set your factory on fire.

Iko Iko an de.

In Italy, that's what they do when Alcatel-Lucent threatens to shut down their factory.

I told you the gas cans wouldn't stay empty.

I just hope they don't actually set themselves on fire. That won't teach a corporation anything other than a convenient way to avoid paying severance. On the other hand, you'd have to burn down a lot of factories before the corporation's insurance would go up enough to make them notice, so I don't know if that's a good idea. But it would be flashy.

Agh! Chemicals!

2009-09-08T09:55:00.005-04:00

Oh, no! The Chemicals are Here!

This is the sort of analysis that led Arthur Benjamin to give a TED talk to tell us that mathematical education ought to focus more on statistics than calculus, as statistics is far more useful in everyday life.

First off, you're ignorant if you want to rid your life of "chemicals".

When blood tests showed your body's chemical load was relatively low, did you feel any better?
It wasn't low. There was a presence of chemicals that everybody has but are there acceptable levels? Frankly, I don't think so.

A presence of chemicals, huh? Like hemoglobin? Vitamin C? Vitamin D? Zinc? Calcium? How about water? Was there any dihydrogen monoxide? You know how dangerous that stuff is. It causes asphyxiation and has been used to torture people for centuries.

But it's not just the ignorance of what the word "chemical" means. It's also statements like these:

If I use any shampoo or soap on my daughter, I buy them at the health-food store and the less ingredients, the better.

Really? I believe that Ivory advertises itself and 99.44% pure. No additives. No scents. How would your health-food store match up to that?

Today we have the highest rate of childhood cancer, unprecedented levels of autism and asthma, food allergies, skin allergies – all these sensitivities that are clearly related to environmental conditions. And this idea that past generations lived in surroundings that were chemically toxic and they survived is also quite false. One in three die of cancer.

This is a really long chunk of confusion.

Cancer rates for children are not rising. They've been relatively stable for the last 25 years.

The reason you see high levels of autism is because we've been changing the definition of autism to include more people. In a bygone era, most of these people were just referred to as "retarded" and left at that. As well, there's the term "autism spectrum disorder" which refers to a wide variety of minor social problems. As much as some want to blame the "growth in autism" on vaccines and other nonsense, the biggest cause is our widening definition and better diagnostic methods.

If you want to talk about food allergies, you have to wonder how many children simply died because of peanut allergies in the old days. Now that our infant mortality rate has dropped so severely, there are more people with allergies.

And it was way, way more toxic in the old days. There were no workplace safety rules. People died of cancer from breathing in horrible quality air in all sorts of mines and factories. There was almost no pollution control on cars. Paint was made out of lead (the article mentions this and fails to note the contradiction to her own premise). Buildings were made out of asbestos.

Finally, of course more people are dying of cancer. Everyone has to die of something and once we've fixed everything else, the last few things left are going to become bigger threats. This is the fault of improvements in medicine, not chemicals in the environment.

I read articles like this, these compilations of ignorance, and I have to wonder what people are taking away from it. Am I going to end up with people trying to outlaws vaccines? Enforce circumcisions? Outlaw fluoridated water again?

Yes, there are concerns about certain chemicals. Yes, we have to perform scientific studies to figure out which ones are real problems and which of these claims is nonsense. But articles written by a clearly ignorant person who wants you to read other ignorant things on the web and then "go back to your own spine" for guidance, are worthless.

But What If Torture Works?

2009-08-31T22:27:00.004-04:00

I've already written about torture, but perhaps it bears repeating when I see the following video.

"...whether or not these techniques are immoral, or how immoral they are, surely depends on whether or not they work."

No. No, it doesn't.

I don't have to examine the possible uses of infant blood to realize that putting a child in to a tree chipper is immoral. I don't need to measure the property tax benefit to a city to see that bulldozing a homeless shelter is immoral. I don't need to examine the shock and awe created by a nuclear explosion to know that dropping an atomic weapon on civilians is immoral.

And I don't need to know whether or not "torture works" to decide it's wrong. It's wrong because we will make ourselves at least as bad as we pretend our enemies are. It's wrong because it dehumanizes people, both victim and torturer. It's wrong because it's the worst part of us and our humanity demands we stomp that part of our psyches out of existence.

Nothing we learn from torture could ever be worth what it does.

And that conclusion doesn't have a thing to do with whether or not it works.

h/t Red Tory

God's Verdict

2009-08-30T10:01:00.004-04:00

Stephen Harper, speaking on history's judgement of his term:

“To be honest with you, I am a lot more concerned by God's verdict regarding my life than the one of historians,” the Prime Minister said with a laugh, according to the article.

Er ... wow.

I suppose, if you're religious, that's the way to do things. Everlasting soul and all that crap.

But, really, it just sounds creepy coming from a politician. It makes me wonder if all this sucking-up-to-America isn't really sucking up to America. It may be part and parcel of the same belief system that led George Bush to telling people that his invasion of Iraq was a mission from god.

That's right. Harper's envy of America wasn't really envy. He wasn't really criticizing Canada for being a north-European welfare state. That was all just a cover for his jealousy of the way the United States was able to use its armies to pursue better standing at the gates of heaven.

Who cares if you ruin the country? As long as you did the will of Almighty God, I guess you're covered.

Great.

Just great.

Terrorist or Asshole

2009-08-25T15:37:00.004-04:00

It occurs to me, after engaging in a discussion on Morton's blog, that we have to distinguish between two types of people: the terrorist and the asshole.

It's useful to have a definition of a terrorist: a person who uses violence or the threat of violence to create political change or change in public opinion.

The subject of the discussion on Morton's blog was that of honour killings. If a man kills his daughter for wearing the wrong clothes or courting the wrong suitor, is this an act of a terrorist, or is he merely an asshole? (We take it as read, here, that he is at least an asshole.)

Does this constitute an act of terrorism?

A lot of that depends on how we weasel the definition. If this act of assholery has the effect of intimidating other women from making the clothing and courting choices they truly want, the effect is that of terrorism. But did the guy who murdered his daughter intend that effect, or did he just go off in a murderous, punitive rage and only incidentally have that effect?

If he were to take his petulant child and, as the bible advises, bring her before the town and have her put to death, we could definitely conclude that he is a terrorist. He, and any townspeople helping him, are intentionally using violence to intimidate others in to obeying their moral code. That would be terrorism.

But if we include the unintentional effects of a violent act committed by an asshole and allow that to declare him a terrorist, I would think that pretty much every violent act would have to be called a terrorist act on account of the fact that violence is always intimidating.

This is probably why the designation of "hate crime" had to be created. We judge the crime not only on the intent or the result, but on that shady region in between, where the victim was chosen because of her membership in a group (young women, possibly "young women of a certain culture") and the effect of the assault was to intimidate others of the same group. Additionally, the violence is part of a system of behaviour that intrinsically intimidates that group.

So. Honour killers are terrorists? I don't think so (though I'm not married to not thinking so). But they are assholes and deserve extra time in jail for participating in a hate crime.

Billing Laws

2009-07-25T10:01:00.002-04:00

Seriously, it's about time we made some rules for the people who send us monthly bills.

It seems that the goal of the billing statement is to trick you in to paying incorrectly - or on the wrong day - and charging you ridiculous interest rates.

At the very least, I expect the "payment" stub of the bill to list:
a) The amount I must pay to avoid any late fees
b) The date by which I must pay it, in long hand (none of this deceptive 07/08/09 nonsense)

Bell is polite enough to do that, although they mislead you at the top of the bill with a column of pre-tax calculations with a bolded total alongside the post-tax calculation with a bolded total.

The credit cards aren't so kind. Some list the real total (a) and the due date (b), while others only list the minimum payment and leave you to search among "Old balance", "Credit", "New Charges" and "New Balance" while leaving the date in a indecipherable numeric format.

We really ought to have laws, forcing these people - especially the credit cards - to spell things out deliberately.

Set Phasers To Stun? Apparently Not.

2009-07-24T23:58:00.002-04:00

That's how they think of Tasers, isn't it?

We'll just stun 'em. All sci-fi and everything.

Apparently Braidwood doesn't agree.

2. I recommend that officers of provincially regulated law enforcement agencies be prohibited from deploying a conducted energy weapon unless the subject’s behaviour meets one of the following thresholds:

• the subject is causing bodily harm; or

• the officer is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the subject’s behaviour will imminently cause bodily harm.

That's not the statement you make for a stun gun. That's a statement you make for an actual gun that kills people.

Welcome to Canada ... Most of You

2009-07-24T16:37:00.001-04:00

No, I'm not being sarcastic. I am greatly in favour of the positive attitude that Canada has for multiculturalism. We welcome people from different parts of the world, take their ideas and perspectives, examine those unique ways of viewing the world and make the best ones a part of our own heterogeneous way of life.

In Canada I can get food prepared in the style of almost any nation on Earth. I can get it from a restaurant or buy the raw ingredients and make it at home. I can go to a park and watch as the Ultimate players come off the field because it's time for Cricket. I can go to a ball and see a guy in a kilt dancing with a woman in a sari. I, an atheist, have gone to lunch and sat at a single table with a Sikh, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist and three different kinds of Christian.

I like that aspect of my country. It's a source of pride that we have managed to make a peaceful society out of people with cultural backgrounds that would have them at war.

But we also draw a line. I can't properly describe the gap between the pride in peace that I feel most of the time and the disgust and rage I feel when I read about people who come here so tied to their cultural underpinnings that they carry their history of violent intolerance with them.

I'm not talking about the local supporters of international issues staging demonstrations. I'm talking about these awful things they call "honour killings".

I can, even from my left wing viewpoint, with absolute confidence and no hedging, tell these people that their culture is wrong. I have viewed their decisions to murder their daughters, and very occasionally their sons, for what they see as dishonourable actions, and I have concluded that I don't want that in my country. My multicultural mosaic will do fine without that contribution.

In summary, and quite simply, your multicultural fist must stop swinging at someone else's face. I don't care what your culture and your religion say. If it leads to you killing your children for disobedience, tough luck. Disown them if you want, abandon them to be wards of the state (for which you will be fined), but you're not allowed to kill them.

There, I said it.

A significant portion of your culture is so stupid and dangerous that I'm willing to pass judgment on the entirety of it. Dump it at customs or don't bother coming in.

The Gas Cylinders Are Empty ... for now

2009-07-15T10:04:00.003-04:00

At least we're getting to the point where the wealthy psychopaths who run so many of our corporations can be justified in their complaints that "class warfare" is actually happening.

Some workers at a French Nortel plant, laid off and presuming - based on historical evidence - that the corporation will screw them out of their severance and pensions, have threatened to blow up the company's buildings.

Workers ... have threatened to blow up their factory unless they secure decent layoff terms, but gas cylinders placed around the plant were empty.

Now we're talking about class warfare.

Sad but true, this may be the only way to get through to the selfish, economist types who are at the top of this pyramid. It's clear from the way that they have taken money from workers' pensions and from the way they timed layoffs and layoff payments to occur after bankruptcy was declared (so as to make layoff victims "unsecured creditors") that these people do not care, and can't be made to care, about the lives they are ruining.

When you're a sociopath, that's the way you act. And when you're a sociopath, you make an excellent corporate master. It's practically part of the job description.

It's also obvious that various levels of government will do nothing to pull these people up short.

I suppose they just expect laid off, victimized employees to quietly sell their houses in the night, go on welfare and eventually starve to death.

I'm sure that will work out, especially when they see all the executives sailing around on the new yachts they're buying with their bonuses.

The gas cans are empty ... for now. Don't expect them to stay that way. You can't do this to that many people without expecting some of them to get very, very angry.

Stevie, My Sympathy is Limited

2009-07-09T10:45:00.004-04:00

It's right about at that threshold I felt for the Enron employees who kept investing in their company's stock while it was going down, throwing more and more of their pensions in before the whole thing crashed.

Dave has written an excellent article saying that the issue should be dropped, that it's a distraction from bigger issues and that the Catholic Church has no business getting all moral with people. I mostly agree.

No, I'm not going to go after Harper for breaking some stupid religious rule. As far as the catholics are concerned, he was damned either way. Non-catholics aren't christians, according to the catholic church, so they have no business eating the cracker. Discarding is also unacceptable.

But I don't care.

What gets me is that the guy who is riding a frothing wave of Religious Nutbars (mostly protestant) is now going to invoke the wrath of a separate sect of frothing Religious Nutbars.

I can't pretend that I have any sympathy.

Just Say No To Diamonds

2009-06-26T10:29:00.003-04:00

Would it be that hard to create a North American and European campaign against diamonds?

I don't mean the "blood diamonds" - just the ones that are acquired via slavery, beatings, civil war and other kinds of murder.

I mean that there should be a campaign against all diamonds.

The author of the Kimberley Process for certifying diamonds has resigned in the face of the fact that the people who should have been regulating the Kimberley process have simply failed to do so.

The United States apparently soaks up about half of the world's diamonds as a result of a concerted campaign in the 1930s, paid for by the diamond industry, to create an expectation among young women that diamonds are essential to a marriage proposal.

Maybe the money spent on the Kimberley process was spent incorrectly.

Wouldn't it have been more efficient to spend that same money on television, billboard and radio ads teaching everyone to be horrified at the presence of diamonds?

Take that guy in the fancy suit, down on his knee, offering a diamond ring and put him against a backdrop of blood and murder and slain children. How many times do you have to show that ad before nary a soul wants to be involved with diamonds at all?

You're probably saying, "what about the legitimate diamond miners?". To that I can only say that 'legitimate' is a funny word for a bunch of people running a worldwide monopoly and price-fixing scheme. Don't believe me? Take that heirloom engagement ring left behind in an inheritance and actually try to sell it. Don't just have it appraised. Actually try to sell it. You'll get about ten cents on the dollar.

The whole thing is a lie.

The whole thing is a scam.

If you want my opinion, the money that went in to the Kimberley Process could have been better spent on anti-diamond marketing.

It's a Sad, Sad Day

2009-06-22T12:33:00.005-04:00

One of Ottawa's most venerable institutions has been cited for a liquor license violation and had its license suspended for five days.

It used to be that this city stood for something. It used to represent a standard of morals and ethics that exceeded the norms, that symbolized all that this country ever was and ever could be.

A place where women dance on a stage, remove their clothing and squirm around on customers' laps was a place we could trust. It was a place with a code of honour and a certain heightened level of classiness.

But no more.

" ... an Ontario liquor inspector ... discovered an apparently drunk person in the BareFax."

It's a sad, sad day, ladies and gentlemen, when a institution like this, a backbone of the Byward Market, only blocks away from our federal Parliament, performs like this. Whom can we trust if we can't trust a strip joint to make sure everyone under their charge is sober? What kind of nanny state would we be?

Hopefully, this five-day suspension will teach the Barefax its lesson and, reproached, it will rejoin the community in a healthy, respectable and moral manner.

Until then, I suppose this should be considered an opportunity. Table dances are 3 for the price of 2 until the license comes back and it's a good opportunity for devout Baptists, Muslims, Mormons and others opposed to alcohol to go see some strippers.

Silver lining through the clouds, people. Chin up, we'll get through this blight on our city's reputation.

I've Always Been Cynical About Politicians

2009-06-10T22:21:00.004-04:00

But sometimes their cynicism overwhelms mine, which just means I have to kick mine up a notch.

Cynicism: An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others.

I know that politicians want power. But somehow, like those ridiculous Survivor participants who are surprised when they are betrayed, I am still taken aback when I find out how manipulative a politician can get.

Harken back, ye readers, to the age of Listeriosis. It happened under the Conservatives, a result of their own deregulatory practices. People were getting sick. Some were dying. Minister Gerry Ritz made a joke about the announcements of death as being "death by a thousand cuts" to his and his party's reputation.

A lot was made of his next dark joke, "Or should I say cold cuts." But that's not what matters. We've all made dark jokes at one time or another. What matters is that his party's policies were killing people, that he was in charge of fixing the crisis and that he was more concerned about his reputation.

Yeah. Poor guy. All those dead people were just murder to his reelection chances.

And now we see Minister Raitt. This isotope shortage will mean human lives endangered. Cancers and other diseases will go undiagnosed. People could die.

And, like Gerry Ritz, she's more concerned about political points. Sure, I saw her apology (dissected here). She's had cancer in her family. So have I. So has everyone, I bet.

Somehow, I'm sympathetic. I've had to wait in emergency rooms. I recoil at the misery this will bring to my fellow humans.

Somehow, her first instinct isn't sympathy. Is there a spot on that tape where she demonstrates human distress at the situation? Some kind of, "My God, Bones, what have we done?"? I doubt it, but I'm willing to be corrected.

I'm willing to bet that she's just so far gone in to the "rough and tumble" of the this new politics she touts that she's lost entirely.

I know I'm being very cynical, but whose fault is that?

That's your Democracy Dying

2009-06-08T22:26:00.004-04:00

And it's whimpering away, quietly in the night.

Minister Raitt, quoting leading bankers at a meeting of Council of Chief Executives:

“They did it at the Canadian Council of (Chief) Executives, there was three presidents of major banks who stood up in the room — and this is not from cabinet so I can talk about it — stood up and said, ‘Ignatieff, don’t you even think about bringing us to an election,’”

Is this a real quote? Is it even close to accurate? Is it paraphrasing a more subtle, veiled message?

John McCallum, Liberal finance critic, had this to say of the quote:

“That’s absolutely ridiculous. Can you imagine a bank president standing up in a room like that with more than 100 people in the room and saying something like that? It makes no sense.”

Yes, John, I can believe it.

I have no trouble at all believing that very wealthy people are indeed in control of our economy and our country.

There is nothing the least bit incredible about that.

And the fact that both Harper and Ignatieff are enslaved to their election funds is no surprise either.

Look what happened to Stephane Dion. He wasn't part of the business elite. He wasn't anointed by the wealthy. He received no funding and his bid for power ended.

We know who you people are. We know what you're up to. It's nice to have you out in the open, though. Thanks for that.

h/t Galloping Beaver

The Liberal Mafia vs. the Conservative Punks

2009-06-04T21:40:00.003-04:00

When the mafia comes to your town, it's organized crime. They hit you up for protection money, do you a favour, you owe them a favour. Sure, it's crime and it's bad, there's no question. But there's also no question that it's organized.

And so it was with the Liberals and their Sponsorship Scandal. The Scandal was a well organized scam within the silliness of the Sponsorship program. Money was syphoned away. Kickbacks were attained. The government and the people were ripped off, but you had a sense that the thing had been carefully planned.

When a bunch of illiterate teenage punks comes in to your town, they like to swarm old people, mug children, beat up old ladies, set things on fire and generally vandalize your life for kicks.

That's how the Conservatives are. One of them leaves secret documents at his girlfriend's house. The other ones leaves other documents at a broadcast studio and then, infantile, the whole things gets blamed on an underling. Then they start selling off silver that doesn't even belong to Canada but to Buckingham Palace.

I get the vague impression that our government is being run by a bunch of juvenile jackasses slowly vandalizing our country. Given the choice, I'll take the previous criminals and their well organized, quiet, respectful thievery.

Harper: "You're On Your Own"

2009-06-04T07:59:00.006-04:00

I think it's important to know, as a Canadian, whether or not your government has your back. It's important to know if the Prime Minister who flew a photographer to Cyprus to show off his generosity is actually anything more than an opportunistic hypocrite.

And the results are in:

According to the "federal factum" written by our government:

"States do not have a duty to protect citizens held by foreign countries."

"The judge erred by transforming obligations to respect the rights of children within Canada into a new duty to protect Canadian children subject to mistreatment by foreign officials outside the territory of Canada"

So now you know. If you're caught up in some foreign country, snared or framed by some local con artist, stuck in a jail cell and being punished by some third world warlord, being handled by some archaic, disreputable farce of a justice system ... well, now you know that your country does not have your back.

Someone should probably add that to the international travel advisory.

"Canadians traveling to all other countries are advised that their government will abandon them to any kangaroo court that kidnaps them. Please use caution when visiting the world."

h/t Galloping Beaver.

All the Bad Things I've Ever Thought About Conservatives

2009-05-28T06:42:00.002-04:00

All of them are coming through.

I've always believed that Conservatives create deficits in order to force austerity on the population, reduce services and get people to expect less for their taxes. The goal is to get poor and middle class people to hate taxes as much as the rich do, even though poor and middle class generally benefit from our level of taxation.

And while they're doing this - racking up record deficits - they sell off public institutions to make the budget appear balanced while ensuring future austerity via a lack of public assets.

As well, I've understood the strategy of mismanaging public institutions on purpose in order to denigrate them. Remember Mike Harris and his Tories in Ontario, slowly destroying our public education system and health care system so that they could shrug their shoulder and say, "What do you expect from government? Government sucks. Let's do private schools instead."

And now we see this happening in our federal government.

You remember that reactor that produces medical isotopes for the entire world? The one run by AECL? The one whose shutdown they blamed on "Liberal appointee" Linda Keen, whom they subsequently fire?

Well, the Conservatives are in charge now, having ordered the reactor activated over the safety concerns of the people charged with protecting our health. And the reactor is, as one would expect, malfunctioning and shut down with no prospect of a quick turn around.

So what's the Conservative solution?

Let's sell the reactor to a private organization.

I kid you not. Put the world's major source of medical isotopes in the hands of the profit-driven private sector. Give a private company a virtual monopoly on our health. Claim the sale price against the deficit so it doesn't look so bad. Hide the perpetual cost of this move in the distant future of rising health care costs.

It accomplishes everything the Conservatives could ever want: rising deficit; austerity measures; weakening public institutions; private profit. Some things just never, ever change.

It's time to talk Capital Punishment

2009-05-26T22:34:00.004-04:00

This happens every time an innocent person is killed in a stupid, callous or malicious manner.

This time the victim is an 8 year old girl named Victoria Stafford. Do the details matter? 8 year olds are, by definition, innocent of anything that could possibly deserve such a fate. Does it matter how she was led away by a person she recognized? Does it matter what was done to her? She was innocent. She was treated horribly and now she is gone.

And so it begins.

Let's kill the murderers!

I suppose I'd agree to capital punishment under two conditions:
a) we can be absolutely sure we have the correct guilty party
b) killing the murderer would bring the victim back to life

Because as I understand it, we can not achieve "justice" for Victoria Stafford with our present technology. The innocent eight year old is gone and we can't get her back. Even if you could, beyond any doubt, establish who killed her, what benefit is there to putting killers to death?

You can trot out all the arguments you want: not wanting to pay for the housing and feeding of the murderers while in jail; the deterrence factor for future potential killers; preventing these murderers from striking again.

None of those arguments (even though only the last holds up under scrutiny) make anything but a mash of the concept of justice. There can't be justice for Victoria Stafford. Nor for Kristen French or Leslie Mahaffy.

And what we have in this country is a system of justice, not a system of revenge. Other cultures have had revenge based systems. An eye for eye meant malice was answered with malice and the descent to madness was ensured.

Killing these murderers wouldn't accomplish anything except to demonstrate that we can kill them. We would not be a safer nation but a more brutal one. We would be a nation admitting that we can't defeat dangerous people except by sinking to their level. We would be surrendering to our bloodlust and bankrupting our moral fiber in the process.

Why shouldn't we put Victoria Stafford's murderers to death?

Because we're better than they are. That's reason enough.

Don't let an innocent child be an excuse for barbarism.

Sanity with Bullying

2009-05-05T09:55:00.003-04:00

There's never been a good system for dealing with bullying. Out of sight and out of mind until the victim fights back is the current policy.

So I was glad to see that the Asian kid who was suspended for fighting back against a racist bully has had his suspension canceled.

Victory, of sorts, although I think this is the funniest part:

He also would like to know why the school board sent a letter saying it would recommend the 15-year-old be expelled [from all regional schools], only to say three days later that the letter was sent in error.

Error? What kind of error is that?

"We meant to say that your son could be smelled from all schools in the region. Hygiene issue. Simple spelling error."

Or maybe: "We send out so many of these Regional Expulsion Letters that they go out by accident to the wrong people on occasion. Our bad."

One could only hope that they frequently come down this hard on actual bullies, but I doubt it.

Meanwhile, I dance the Happy Victory Dance. Hurrah for justice.

Systems for Bullies

2009-04-30T12:11:00.004-04:00

The way we handle bullying in schools has always been archaic. In the rest of our civilization, we are not expected to put up with threats of violence. Threats of violence are considered "assault" and the perpetrators can be arrested and jailed. In school, though, local authorities have long expected victimized students to simply suck it up. Victims should either roll with the punches (i.e. capitulate to violence) or stand up for themselves.

Of course, they'd better not stand up for themselves too much, because then they get arrested. For example, we have this 15 year old Asian kid in Keswick, Ontario. He faced off against a racist bully. The bully punched first. The Asian kid punched last, breaking the bully's nose.

It'd be as well at this point to explain why I'm taking the story at face value. Why do I believe that, as written, the white kid was an aggressive, racist bully? Why do I believe that the Asian kid acted with the absolute minimum force at the last reasonable moment? Because I read the story. Keswick has a racism problem with documented assaults. 400 students came out to protest the Asian kid's suspension. The Asian kid has a 90% scholastic average. All relevant implications lead me to believe that the story is accurate.

I also believe the story because it is absolutely par for the course.

As far as authorities - police as well as school administration - are concerned, bullying is not a problem. The bullies only perform their assaults and batterings out of sight. There is rarely obvious bloodshed or broken bones. The victims are frightened in to silence. If the victims don't fight back, authority can blithely pretend that there is no violence in the school, that any rumours are just boys working things out for themselves, and fill out reports to that effect.

When the victims fight back, the problem is different. It is rarely effective for a smaller boy to wrestle or idly punch at a bully. Small amounts of pain are rarely a deterrent to large, aggressive people. To stop a bully, you have to stop a bully. And at that point, you often have blood, a broken bone or a concussion. Now the administration's "boys will be boys" ignorance falls on its face. They have an obviously damaged kid and another who damaged him.

So punish the kid who did the damage. Ignore all historical facts, torment and accumulated damage in the opposite direction. Wipe your hands and walk away. Done.

So that's what they did. They not only suspended the victim, they also had him arrested for assault. How ignorant is this? Let us take the punch completely out of context. Let us pretend that this Asian kid just whaled on the white kid for no reason. The Asian kid isn't bleeding, right? His nose isn't broken. So it must be his fault.

Kudos the kids at the high school for walking out and protesting on his behalf. I never saw the likes of that when I was growing up. If there's hope for the future, it's those 400 kids right there.

McGuinty: Chrysler's Problems are the Union's Fault

2009-04-19T13:32:00.003-04:00

Early Friday morning, a letter was published in which the Chrysler executive demanded, in public, that the union accede to its demands in order to save the company. As I explained, the real problem was that Chrysler had never put aside any money for the pensions it had promised its employees. Instead, it now includes the cost of those pensions as part of the current employees' labour cost.

The effect is to make the workers seem expensive relative to those at neighbouring plants when, in reality, they make about the same amount of money.

Now the Premier would like to chime in with this helpful comment:

“I'm not going to provide specific advice to the union, except to say we all have to find a way to come to the table and make some sacrifices."

Now once you've read Chrysler's original letter and the article linked above, don't you ever, ever try to tell me that the Globe and Mail is a left wing newspaper. Never.

We all have to make sacrifices, Mr. Premier? What sacrifices are the executives making? Are they giving up their life insurance? Have they already surrendered semi-private hospital coverage? Have they acknowledged the "reality of the time" by nixing their own extended health care coverage?

That the newspaper has not answered these questions is answer enough. If the executives had made such sacrifices, it would have been written. That the newspaper fails to point out that the executives are not so heroic tells me all I need to know about the Globe and Mail.

Yes, Mr. McGuinty, you corporate stooge, please refrain from giving the union advice. Why don't you go advise the executives on how to take a cut? Why don't you advise the executives on how to properly protect their workers' pensions?

Your comment, sir, that we "all" have to make sacrifices, is entirely disingenuous. "All" - to you - clearly means "the union". "All" clearly does not include the upper class people. What would happen if those people lost their gold-plated benefits? What horrors? We need top talent in the executive! We just have to overpay them! Don't you all understand!

If the executive of Chrysler want to keep their wonderful jobs, they first have to admit that they blew it. And by "it" I mean "the workers' pension fund". Then they have to volunteer to make the same sacrifices in terms of benefits that they ask of the workers. It won't mean as much, what with their salaries being so much higher, but it would look better. After that, they can admit that including the pension cost in the current labour cost is the height of hypocrisy

Then, with all of that admitted, perhaps the union and the executive can sit down and find a fair way to keep the plants open.

Chrysler : Labour Rates and Other Obfuscations

2009-04-17T14:03:00.004-04:00

If you were to read the news lately, you could be forgiven for thinking that North American auto manufacturers pay their workers more than Japanese auto manufacturers do - even the Japanese manufacturers that are located in North America.

This may be true, but it's a very small difference if it is. What you are actually seeing quoted in the news are the labour rates. A labour rate is not what the employees get paid. It's the company's way of adding up the company's cost of labour - which includes actual dollars per hour, plus cost of benefits, plus the cost of pensions of workers who are retired.

It's that last one that makes it look so unrealistic. So when the Globe and Mail publishes a letter from Chrysler to its employees which says, "... the all-in labour costs at Chrysler Canada are $76 per hour while the Toyota Canada all-in rate is approximately $57 per hour" it's important to understand that much of that $19 of difference is actually Chrysler Canada's error in not maintaining a pension fund for its retired employees. Instead, Chrysler Canada promised the pension (presumably winning concessions from employees when it made the promise) and then simply declared the cost of those pensions as part of the present-day worker's cost.

Imagine the Widget Company. It has 100 retired employees who receive $39k per year pensions. Let's say the Widget Company has a staff of 100 workers who are making $39k per year ($20 per hour). Under the definition of "labour rate" used by Chrysler, the Widget Company would declare that its labour cost is actually $40 per hour because the company is putting the burden of the pension plan it promised but never managed on its 100 present day workers.

Rip-off, you say? Of course it is. I would just call it lying, personally, but the world of finance is often full of such misdirection.

It would get even worse when the Thingamajig Company comes to town. Then the stockholders could get angry at the Widget Company and its atrocious $40 per hour workers. "Why look", they would say, "the new Thingamajig Company has a labour rate of just $22 per hour!" This is because it either has no pensioners yet or because it allows a 3rd party to manage their pensions with the extra $2 per hour.

"Egad", the shareholders would shout, "You workers must make concessions! The fault lies in your greed! Give up your hard won benefits! Cut your salaries! This is a recession!"

And so Chrysler publishes a list of things it feels should be taken from employees in order to make up for the fact that Chrysler didn't put money away to cover its promise of retirement benefits and pensions. Chrysler workers will need to have less pay and benefits than Toyota workers because of that pension cost in the labour rate.

So Chrysler makes a list of ways to bring down the labour rate. Please note that nowhere in that letter does it mention anything about cutting the benefits or salaries of executives. Should we assume that's already happened? I wouldn't assume anything of sort, personally.

Somehow, putting a cap on dispensing fees costs $2.16 an hour? That cries out for an explanation. Chrysler would like to take way your Life Insurance and your out of province health care coverage as well as your semi-private hospital bed. It wants to add to your health care premiums.

The list goes on, but the point is clear: it's the union's fault.

In a way I have to agree.

It is the union's fault. It is the workers' faults. They wanted a pension plan and they trusted a corporation to maintain, fund and manage it. Why would anyone, ever, trust a corporation to take care of a person? That's just not what corporations are good at. That's why we keep them out of health care and education.

Women in Afghanistan

2009-04-15T12:17:00.004-04:00

There are certain occasions on which a coincidence of events would almost lead me to believe that some type of higher power is orchestrating the universe. This higher power is not benevolent, but rather some type of darkly humourous manipulator, content to make our lives in to some overwritten, overdramatized story line fit for a soap opera.

For witness, I give you a young lady, Karine Blais, recently killed in combat by a roadside bomb. We are to believe that she died for the freedom of an oppressed people and the new government that will set them free. We are to believe that we are fighting against religious tyranny in favour of moderation.

And so, we are to understand, this young Canadian woman gave her life for people yearning to breathe free.

And then we have this ridiculous law that the free, supposedly-less-religious, government of Afghanistan wants to pass. You know the one, where women - who often don't have a choice in getting married in the first place - can be required to have sex with their husbands with a specific frequency. 300 women came out to protest the law. Over a thousand people, men and women, came out to pelt those 300 with stones.

The articles says "small" stones, but this is relative term and we're talking about an area of the world where throwing stones at people is a form of execution. I can't help but wonder if this constitutes a threat of death in such places much like hanging someone in effigy would be here.

What of this? A young woman from Canada dies for the freedom of people who come out to pelt independent young women with stones for not wanting to be raped?

Irony so thick you can smell it.

No, wait, that's not how irony smells ...

The Pope's Hope

2009-04-12T21:40:00.002-04:00

Dear Pope Benedict,

I heard about your address regarding the need for hope and I thought I would respond.

I guess I find it hard to be hopeful, despite your papal command that I do so. Even though everyone knows that the pope is always right, I find it difficult to simultaneously be hopeful while also acknowledging that I'm such a terrible sinner that I deserve to burn in the fiery pits of hell in endless agony.

Call me a party pooper, but that's just such a downer.

I'm also a bit conflicted about your desire for hope in Africa where, as you say, "... growing numbers of her sons and daughters who fall prey to hunger, poverty and disease". It seems like condoms and other forms of birth control would solve a lot of the problems in Africa - especially the "growing numbers" part and the "disease" part.

It seems like Africa might need more than "hope".

Maybe you could sell some of those gold relics you hide all over the Vatican and use the money to send condoms to Africa.

I'm just saying.

Greg.

Our Soldiers are Dying For This?

2009-04-02T11:17:00.004-04:00

We were told that the war in Afghanistan was being fought to end religious tyranny. We're fighting the Taliban. It's a worthwhile endeavour, all that bloodshed, because we're removing crazy religious dogmatists from power and supporting a moderate government that will protect innocent people from the Taliban.

So we put up with Karzai. So we sent our boys and girls. So we dropped bombs and shot people. So over a hundred of our people have died in this endeavour. So we spent money we can ill afford to spend.

And now?

And now the sham of democracy that is the "loya jirga" in Afghanistan is passing laws that enforce the same religious tyranny that we were supposedly there to prevent.

The whole facade is crumbling. We've never been fighting for democracy or freedom. We've spent decades supporting right wing dictators in foreign countries, calling it democracy and lying to the people.

This is only the latest lie: that we are in Afghanistan for anything other than self interest.

It's time to bring our soldiers home. Not one more person should have to spend one more minute in theatre, never mind be wounded or die, for this sham.

Regarding Class Warfare: Eating the Poor

2009-04-01T08:14:00.001-04:00

The next time some bunch of rich economist types start complaining that we can't tax rich people because it would "ruin the economy" and "de-incentivize wealth" and that it constitutes "class warfare", show them this.

Homeless woman jailed for being poor.

Her son was arrested and convicted, sentenced to juvenile hall. She was ordered to pay for his detention (?) out of her own pocket. Being unable to do this, she was held in contempt and sent to prison. When she got out, she was then fined for her own jail time.

Basically, we're one step closer to what the wealthy in America really want to do: feed the poor in to meat grinders and serve them with a side of foie gras.

But, oh, don't raise the marginal tax rate on the wealthiest people by 1%, because that would be class warfare.

Combating Defamation of Religions

2009-03-27T07:35:00.006-04:00

Once you know the name of the U.N. Resolution, it's easy to find online.

The question is, now, how bad is it?

If we adopt this resolution in to Canadian Law, what will become illegal? Will I still be allowed to say that I find Christianity ridiculous because it depends upon the debauchery of a teenage virgin and the eating of a cracker that adherents pretend is her son's flesh? Will I be jailed if I say that Judaism is based on the false premise of an Exodus from Egypt? Will I suffer punishment if I say that Islam is an unjust religion because it places such a large share of the responsibility for preventing lust upon women?

The problem comes with the word "defamation". At dictionary.com, it says, "false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another".

False or unjustified? How do you hope to prove that? If there a billion followers of Religion X, then there are a billion different versions of X. One Christian will tell you that abortion isn't all that bad an idea in some cases. I know Muslims who drink alcohol.

And yes, I know, the devout will say these aren't Real Christians (TM) or Real Muslims (TM). They could probably argue, at that point, that I have "defamed" their religions just by attributing such opinions and actions to fake members of their respective religions.

What does the text of the resolution say, regarding defamation of religions? Most of it is actually pretty good, boilerplate, tolerance-based stuff. Most of it simply implores member States to prevent craziness. Some of it, however, goes over the line.

“Stressing that defamation of religions is a serious affront to human dignity leading to the restriction of the freedom of religion of their adherents and incitement to religious hatred and violence,

Here, we note that they never defined "Defamation" in regards to religion. Defamation of a religion, if you wanted to be technical, could happen when an Anglican attributes something to Catholicism that a Catholic says is false. Now what? Do our courts become crammed with every case of doctrinal schism that anyone feels like litigating?

“Recognizing the valuable contributions of all religions and beliefs to modern civilization

I most certainly will do no such thing. Did religion bring us some good things? Probably. Here and there. It also brought us Crusades and Jihads and almost everything that's wrong in the Middle East. It brought intentional ignorance, manipulation of the populace and people who want to wipe out scientific education and research.

“16. Underscores the need to combat defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general,

This is a smooth move. Saying bad things about a religion - such as citing contradictions in its holy book or pointing out dangerous side effects of its teachings - could be considered defamation. For example, I might argue that "The Holocaust was a direct result of centuries of Catholic anti-Semitism". A Christian who doesn't feel this is fair could accuse me of this new crime "defamation of religion".

What this part of the resolution is saying is that pointing out this flaw in Catholic history is a subset of "incitement to religious hatred".

Do we understand what this means? Pointing out the violence caused by a religion will now fall under the column of a hate crime.

That's dangerous. It gives the religious people the authority to do whatever they want and be exempt from criticism on the grounds that any such criticism will be "defamation of religion" to any follower who can say that he or she did not support that action.

You can't criticize the dangers of Christianity (abortion clinic bombing, creationism in schools, the Crusades, the Holocaust) because some Christians will call that defamation. You can't criticize the dangers of Judaism (circumcision, the Promised Land) because some Jews don't support all of those effects. You can't criticize Islam for promoting suicide bombings or covering women in potato sacks because not all Muslims support that.

This is a dangerous, dangerous road they're walking with this resolution. I understand that the Muslim states are tired and angry at the fact that their citizens are the victims of such discrimination. But this is not the solution.

KIPP: Margaret Wente and Education

2009-03-22T09:06:00.004-04:00

Down in the states, they've created an educational program called "KIPP" (Knowledge is Power Program) and Margaret Wente wants you to know how wonderful it is.

She tells us that "Nearly 80 per cent of KIPP alumni - who are overwhelmingly black and Hispanic - go to college." Now I'll grant that getting 80% of a minority population in the United States in to post secondary education would be a wonderful achievement.

Unfortunately, KIPP does not come close to achieving this. What KIPP does is first weed out 40% of its population, preventing them from being "alumni" of KIPP. Of the 60% that remain, 80% go on to college or university. 80% of 60% is actually 48%. So it would be more accurate to say that "slightly less than half of KIPP students go to college or university".

On the good side, students are scoring well on standardizes tests. Margaret dedicates a large chunk of text to a set of claims in this regard. "Almost every KIPP school decisively outperforms its district", she says, failing to add the phrase "on standardized tests". Believe it or not, it's easy to have your school get good marks on standardized tests. You just drop the rest of the curriculum and do nothing but focus on the standardized tests. It's a very typical technique and it's ironically destroying education everywhere.

Now you might wonder why 40% of students drop out and a lot of the teachers "move on, too". That might have something to do with burnout. Students go to school for over 8 hours a day, are given homework every night, classes on alternating Saturdays and 3 weeks of school in the summer. Teachers are on call at all times of day, accessible to students by cellphone.

Of course you're going to do well on standardized tests. But you're also going to burn students out and make them hate learning. No wonder only half of them make it to college or university.

What is good about KIPP? Apparently the KIPP administrators have convinced the parents of their students that discipline is very important. They have created a culture of pro-educational behaviour that has been removed from a lot of other places in North America. If you can actually force students to pay attention, discipline those who don't and have parents who agree to that discipline, you can get a lot further in education. That cultural shift, more than the sweatshop mentality, is undoubtedly what is propelling KIPP students forward.

Yes, KIPP sounds like a wonderful, equalizing education system. But it isn't. It's just a sweatshop that makes children do well on standardized tests.