That's what the headline should read. Instead they entitled it: "A nation of debtors".
Indeed. American consumers suddenly can't buy as much as they used to because - pay attention here - "Consumers are feeling the pinch as lenders tighten credit card limits and home equity lines of credit"
Who in their right mind runs credit card debt? I can understand this happening in some kind of emergency but it seems to be a way of life for a certain large chunk of the population that prefers to live way beyond its means - and via credit card interest ends up in at an ever shrinking level of "means".
If one of the results of this whole mess is that the general population realizes what a crazy, ignorant stupid thing it is to willfully pile up credit card debt for the sake of having the coloured iPod, the bolted down truck bed and the absolute latest Intel processor ... well, then, at least something good will have come of it.
Once we free ourselves of slavery to this kind of debt, we can work on controlling the corporations that rule us through our indebtedness and take steps to force them to improve our society, rather than improve themselves at our expense.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
Kirpans Again
I was never completely comfortable with the whole kirpan thing, especially in schools.
The issue has come up again as a Sikh boy has been accused of threatening his classmates with his kirpan. Instinctively, the charge would appear to be untrue. Although two of the boys are saying that the Sikh boy drew the knife, it sounds from various reports that the other witnesses saw no such thing.
If it were true, it's an easy decision. He has clearly violated the "but it's only ceremonial" exception to the No Knives Rule, and therefore he may no longer have his dagger at school.
But why should a student be allowed to carry a knife in the first place? Yes, it's ceremonial. Yes, it's a sign of his loyalty to his religion. So what? It's still a knife.
I'm personally rather conflicted. As an atheist, I very strongly believe two things:
1) every person must be free to believe or disbelieve, practice or not practice, any religion.
2) the way to get people free of the oppressing yoke of religion is not by suppressing their religion but by letting them practice it and setting a better example before them.
On the other hand, I also have a very strong belief that we shouldn't let anyone's religion trump the very sensible laws that we have on books. That's why it's legal to gather sticks on Sundays, cook food on Friday nights, be a homosexual without being stoned to death and wear clothing of two fibres mixed together.
If a Christian or a Jew came in to my high school and demanded the right to kill the school's only openly gay student, we would say "no", Leviticus 20:13 notwithstanding. The religious freedom of the Christian or Jew would be trumped by the right of the gay student to be free of their respective religions.
But if a Jewish student wanted to wear a yarmulke, or a Sikh student to wear a turban - despite a "no hats" policy at the school - the school would permit it as it doesn't really harm or infringe on other students. What this really does is allow any student to wear any head covering of any religion. After all, who is to say a specific student is really a Sikh or not? Religion being personal, you can't touch it.
But a knife? Even a ceremonial knife? Yes, all sorts of restrictions were placed on the handling of the knife. It must be firmly fastened within its container. It must be inside the students clothing (great, a concealed weapon). If the student ever draws the knife, he will lose the privilege.
It still doesn't make sense. It's still a knife. Even if we educate every student in that school about the religious and apparently non-violent nature of the kirpan, it is still the case that this student has permission to carry a knife when no other student does.
After that, it gets worse. It is very easy for every other student in the school to declare himself or herself a Sikh and demand the right to carry a knife in the same manner. There is no possibility, at that point, of stopping it. Just because some local body of Sikh officialdom might state, "No, this other child is not a Sikh and should be allowed a kirpan", is no reason to deny these other children their religious rights. All these children would have to do is claim that the offical Sikh church is oppressing them and we would have to cave in.
Is that what we want? Schools full of children carry ceremonial daggers? I actually used to attend schools. I know that wouldn't last long. Some kid's dagger would not be properly fastened and would show up in a fight somewhere.
We have rules. They have to be followed. Accommodation ought to be made in the name of freedom of religion and simply to make sure that the religious don't feel persecuted as this would cause them to cling more devoutly to their religions. But the line has to be drawn where the religious rules present a danger to other people. Where knives, stoning and other irrational punishments are concerned, our society must say, "No. You have your beliefs and the right to express them, but you may not infringe upon our safety."
The issue has come up again as a Sikh boy has been accused of threatening his classmates with his kirpan. Instinctively, the charge would appear to be untrue. Although two of the boys are saying that the Sikh boy drew the knife, it sounds from various reports that the other witnesses saw no such thing.
If it were true, it's an easy decision. He has clearly violated the "but it's only ceremonial" exception to the No Knives Rule, and therefore he may no longer have his dagger at school.
But why should a student be allowed to carry a knife in the first place? Yes, it's ceremonial. Yes, it's a sign of his loyalty to his religion. So what? It's still a knife.
I'm personally rather conflicted. As an atheist, I very strongly believe two things:
1) every person must be free to believe or disbelieve, practice or not practice, any religion.
2) the way to get people free of the oppressing yoke of religion is not by suppressing their religion but by letting them practice it and setting a better example before them.
On the other hand, I also have a very strong belief that we shouldn't let anyone's religion trump the very sensible laws that we have on books. That's why it's legal to gather sticks on Sundays, cook food on Friday nights, be a homosexual without being stoned to death and wear clothing of two fibres mixed together.
If a Christian or a Jew came in to my high school and demanded the right to kill the school's only openly gay student, we would say "no", Leviticus 20:13 notwithstanding. The religious freedom of the Christian or Jew would be trumped by the right of the gay student to be free of their respective religions.
But if a Jewish student wanted to wear a yarmulke, or a Sikh student to wear a turban - despite a "no hats" policy at the school - the school would permit it as it doesn't really harm or infringe on other students. What this really does is allow any student to wear any head covering of any religion. After all, who is to say a specific student is really a Sikh or not? Religion being personal, you can't touch it.
But a knife? Even a ceremonial knife? Yes, all sorts of restrictions were placed on the handling of the knife. It must be firmly fastened within its container. It must be inside the students clothing (great, a concealed weapon). If the student ever draws the knife, he will lose the privilege.
It still doesn't make sense. It's still a knife. Even if we educate every student in that school about the religious and apparently non-violent nature of the kirpan, it is still the case that this student has permission to carry a knife when no other student does.
After that, it gets worse. It is very easy for every other student in the school to declare himself or herself a Sikh and demand the right to carry a knife in the same manner. There is no possibility, at that point, of stopping it. Just because some local body of Sikh officialdom might state, "No, this other child is not a Sikh and should be allowed a kirpan", is no reason to deny these other children their religious rights. All these children would have to do is claim that the offical Sikh church is oppressing them and we would have to cave in.
Is that what we want? Schools full of children carry ceremonial daggers? I actually used to attend schools. I know that wouldn't last long. Some kid's dagger would not be properly fastened and would show up in a fight somewhere.
We have rules. They have to be followed. Accommodation ought to be made in the name of freedom of religion and simply to make sure that the religious don't feel persecuted as this would cause them to cling more devoutly to their religions. But the line has to be drawn where the religious rules present a danger to other people. Where knives, stoning and other irrational punishments are concerned, our society must say, "No. You have your beliefs and the right to express them, but you may not infringe upon our safety."
Monday, September 22, 2008
Oh, Twenty Five years, well then ...
Do you remember when you were 14 years old? If you were male, you probably remember all that energy you had and how quickly you could become angry. If you were female, you probably felt a bit differently. But I'm not female, so I can't be sure.
Now remember getting angry at somebody, maybe getting in a fight.
Remember how much you were thinking, "Hey, if I really hurt this guy, I could go to jail for 10 years. I guess I'll just stop right now."
Because 14 year old boys are very pragmatic about these things.
So, we can safely conclude that Stephen Harper's idea of lengthening the maximum criminal sentence of a 14 year old from 10 to 25 years will surely to put an end to such violence.
Right. Totally reasonable. Except in Quebec where it will only apply to kids 16 years and older. Apparently our children here every else in Canada are beyond help, whereas Quebec's children are more sophisticated.
Sigh.
How stupidly reactionary do the Conservatives have to be? Longer sentences simply don't deter youth crime. Criminals, especially children, don't expect to get caught. What does it matter what the punishment is?
The answer, if anyone cares to listen, is to find out what could possibly drive a child to commit murder and find out how to stop that. We don't want giant prisons full of maladjusted people. We want very small prisons and a functional society.
The Conservative Party. Wrong. Just plain wrong. Somebody pass me a Listeria sandwich.
Now remember getting angry at somebody, maybe getting in a fight.
Remember how much you were thinking, "Hey, if I really hurt this guy, I could go to jail for 10 years. I guess I'll just stop right now."
Because 14 year old boys are very pragmatic about these things.
So, we can safely conclude that Stephen Harper's idea of lengthening the maximum criminal sentence of a 14 year old from 10 to 25 years will surely to put an end to such violence.
Right. Totally reasonable. Except in Quebec where it will only apply to kids 16 years and older. Apparently our children here every else in Canada are beyond help, whereas Quebec's children are more sophisticated.
Sigh.
How stupidly reactionary do the Conservatives have to be? Longer sentences simply don't deter youth crime. Criminals, especially children, don't expect to get caught. What does it matter what the punishment is?
The answer, if anyone cares to listen, is to find out what could possibly drive a child to commit murder and find out how to stop that. We don't want giant prisons full of maladjusted people. We want very small prisons and a functional society.
The Conservative Party. Wrong. Just plain wrong. Somebody pass me a Listeria sandwich.
Why is Gordon O'Connor Running?
Former Minister of Defence Gordon O'Connor is running for reelection in my riding.
Why?
He resigned in disgrace for lying to Parliament and for permitting the turnover of prisoners, taken by Canadian soldiers, to Afghanistan authorities who were known to practice torture.
He lied when he told us that the Red Cross would warn us if torture were taking place.
He covered up the torture.
He continued to allow the turnovers to happen when it was known that the prisoners were being tortured.
He was a Defence Industry lobbyist who became the Minister of Defence.
Why is he running? What's the disconnect here?
Is he unfamiliar with the term "resign in disgrace"?
And he'll probably get reelected because the Conservatives are riding high and because the people in my riding want their taxes cut.
It's just plain insulting to be represented by someone like this.
Why?
He resigned in disgrace for lying to Parliament and for permitting the turnover of prisoners, taken by Canadian soldiers, to Afghanistan authorities who were known to practice torture.
He lied when he told us that the Red Cross would warn us if torture were taking place.
He covered up the torture.
He continued to allow the turnovers to happen when it was known that the prisoners were being tortured.
He was a Defence Industry lobbyist who became the Minister of Defence.
Why is he running? What's the disconnect here?
Is he unfamiliar with the term "resign in disgrace"?
And he'll probably get reelected because the Conservatives are riding high and because the people in my riding want their taxes cut.
It's just plain insulting to be represented by someone like this.
Friday, September 19, 2008
We Don't Like Abortion Either
People like Barbara Kay drive me nuts.
I like to think that, on the left, we actually try to understand what the right wingers are thinking. It's a big help when you're arguing with someone to understand her motivations.
So when I read an anti-abortion advocate (okay, "pro-life" advocate), I read with the intent to understand. Unfortunately, I immediately hit a title which shows that she has no understanding of those who favour legalized abortion. The title contains the phrase "Sanctity of Abortion".
Sanctity? Do you really think that there is anyone on this planet who thinks abortion is some kind of holy sacrament? Do you think there's anyone in this country who rejoices to see large numbers of abortions? Do you think any woman has ever gone skipping off to the clinic, rejoicing in the opportunity to take part in some great and holy mystery?
It doesn't work that way.
No one on either side of this equation likes abortion. No one wants large numbers of abortions. Ideally, I'd like there to be zero abortions.
The difference between us and you is that we have a way to get there that might just work. You don't. Your ideas simply cause a lot of illegal abortions and butchered women. Ours involve sex education, birth control and research in to even better birth control. Ours is not perfect, but yours is worse.
Onward. I can see that the author feels persecuted. Apparently, anytime anyone espouses a pro-life point of view, they are shunned from politics. That's news to me. That's also news to George Bush and Sarah Palin who are welcomed with open arms - at least on this issue - by a large chunk of the American population. In Canada, of course Gilles Duceppe is going to attack on this issue. He's a politician. It's his job to point out flaws in his opponents and exploit them for votes.
On the subject of persecution, I'm afraid that you merely have a persecution complex. Most Canadians simply don't support your point of view. If you want to have babies accidentally, that's your lookout. Hell, we'll even support you with child care benefits, a free public education and healthcare. That's our lookout. We're nice people that way.
In order to support your feeling of persecution, you offer a quote from a significant medical figure who says of Sarah Palin:
So what? This is entirely accurate. Without some kind of context, there's no way to know what he meant by this. All we have is your clearly biased opinion that he expressed this statement with "thinly veiled contempt".
I have never once heard Sarah Palin being held up for public chastisement for carrying a Down's Syndrome baby to term. All I've heard are right wing blowhards complaining about her persecution. But again, there is no evidence of actual persecution. Her choice is her choice.
Why should I wish to force an abortion on someone? This is where we clearly have a disconnect. Does Barbara Kay really believe that people on the pro-choice side would want to force abortions on women?
Then we move to the CPSO. I don't have access to the document of which she speaks. It's fiendishly hard to find for such an important document that everyone is talking about. But even this guy admits that it won't force doctors to perform abortions.
What it does is prevent doctors from telling a woman that abortion is evil, sinful or in doing anything else that might unfairly intimidate a woman. If the doctor is unable, for personal reasons, to counsel a woman on the subject, he should refer her to a doctor that will.
There's nothing nefarious there. Abortion is a personal moral decision for the pregnant woman. That being the case, the moral opinion of her doctor should not be interfering with her decision. The doctor's job is to provide medical advice and treatment, not moral guidance.
And we wind up with this bit:
Could anything be more callous than this disregard of a pregnant teenager, lied to or tricked by a boyfriend? Could anything be more uncivil than ignoring the need of a woman who has found that her much wanted child is nonviable? Could anything be more heartless than this treatment of a woman, desperate for a way out of a loveless marriage?
Yes, you foolish women, your desire to control your reproductive organs, to keep your life sane, is morally irrelevant. Your only way to rectify your desperate situation is merely a "service of convenience".
Thus spake the conservative movement, and therefore it must be true. At least it's reassuring to see that no one on their side has enough intelligence to even attempt to understand our side.
I like to think that, on the left, we actually try to understand what the right wingers are thinking. It's a big help when you're arguing with someone to understand her motivations.
So when I read an anti-abortion advocate (okay, "pro-life" advocate), I read with the intent to understand. Unfortunately, I immediately hit a title which shows that she has no understanding of those who favour legalized abortion. The title contains the phrase "Sanctity of Abortion".
Sanctity? Do you really think that there is anyone on this planet who thinks abortion is some kind of holy sacrament? Do you think there's anyone in this country who rejoices to see large numbers of abortions? Do you think any woman has ever gone skipping off to the clinic, rejoicing in the opportunity to take part in some great and holy mystery?
It doesn't work that way.
No one on either side of this equation likes abortion. No one wants large numbers of abortions. Ideally, I'd like there to be zero abortions.
The difference between us and you is that we have a way to get there that might just work. You don't. Your ideas simply cause a lot of illegal abortions and butchered women. Ours involve sex education, birth control and research in to even better birth control. Ours is not perfect, but yours is worse.
Onward. I can see that the author feels persecuted. Apparently, anytime anyone espouses a pro-life point of view, they are shunned from politics. That's news to me. That's also news to George Bush and Sarah Palin who are welcomed with open arms - at least on this issue - by a large chunk of the American population. In Canada, of course Gilles Duceppe is going to attack on this issue. He's a politician. It's his job to point out flaws in his opponents and exploit them for votes.
On the subject of persecution, I'm afraid that you merely have a persecution complex. Most Canadians simply don't support your point of view. If you want to have babies accidentally, that's your lookout. Hell, we'll even support you with child care benefits, a free public education and healthcare. That's our lookout. We're nice people that way.
In order to support your feeling of persecution, you offer a quote from a significant medical figure who says of Sarah Palin:
“[Her decision to carry Trig to term] will have an implication for abortion issues in Canada.”
So what? This is entirely accurate. Without some kind of context, there's no way to know what he meant by this. All we have is your clearly biased opinion that he expressed this statement with "thinly veiled contempt".
I have never once heard Sarah Palin being held up for public chastisement for carrying a Down's Syndrome baby to term. All I've heard are right wing blowhards complaining about her persecution. But again, there is no evidence of actual persecution. Her choice is her choice.
Why should I wish to force an abortion on someone? This is where we clearly have a disconnect. Does Barbara Kay really believe that people on the pro-choice side would want to force abortions on women?
Then we move to the CPSO. I don't have access to the document of which she speaks. It's fiendishly hard to find for such an important document that everyone is talking about. But even this guy admits that it won't force doctors to perform abortions.
What it does is prevent doctors from telling a woman that abortion is evil, sinful or in doing anything else that might unfairly intimidate a woman. If the doctor is unable, for personal reasons, to counsel a woman on the subject, he should refer her to a doctor that will.
There's nothing nefarious there. Abortion is a personal moral decision for the pregnant woman. That being the case, the moral opinion of her doctor should not be interfering with her decision. The doctor's job is to provide medical advice and treatment, not moral guidance.
And we wind up with this bit:
In the end, the almost cultish aura that has been whipped up around the sanctity of abortion by politicians and medical bodies comes down to the morally irrelevant cause of satisfying consumer demand for a service of convenience.
Could anything be more callous than this disregard of a pregnant teenager, lied to or tricked by a boyfriend? Could anything be more uncivil than ignoring the need of a woman who has found that her much wanted child is nonviable? Could anything be more heartless than this treatment of a woman, desperate for a way out of a loveless marriage?
Yes, you foolish women, your desire to control your reproductive organs, to keep your life sane, is morally irrelevant. Your only way to rectify your desperate situation is merely a "service of convenience".
Thus spake the conservative movement, and therefore it must be true. At least it's reassuring to see that no one on their side has enough intelligence to even attempt to understand our side.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Underneath those Conservative Suits
I'd always rather imagined that, though I disagree with them, the members of the Conservative Party were mostly decent folk who simply saw things differently from how I saw them. Certainly they'd be jaded by politics just like the members of other parties, but I still imagined that they had a shred of humanity.
I see the same thing whether we're arguing the free market and capitalism or abortion in birth control. Except for rare occasions, they seem to be human beings.
But then you start to hear stories.
The Tory Agricultural Minister, Gerry Ritz, speaking in reference to the Listeriosis crisis, described it as a death of a thousand cuts “or should I say the death of a thousand cold cuts.”
Yes, those darn dead people, all 17 of them, are so inconvenient. Their deaths are getting in the way of the deregulation platform plank. If only they would remove themselves from the public eyesight, the Tories could get on with privatizing inspections of all sorts of foods so that rich people and corporations could get bigger tax cuts.
It's not important that those people are dying. It's not the tragedy of the situations, the horror of the families watching their loved ones die and their women miscarry. No, the real tragedy is the effect this is having on Gerry Ritz and the Tories.
As if to add insult to stupidity, or stupidity to insult, Gerry Ritz, upon hearing that there was a Listeriosis death in Prince Edward Island, added:
That would be the Liberal Agricultural critic, the guy who has been demanding answers about how and why the crisis happened and how the government would prevent such incidents in the future given that they are ploughing ahead with the deregulation of inspections.
Yeah, classy bunch.
You have to wonder if we're looking at a party of people who honestly believe that massive tax cuts for corporations will somehow benefit every Canadian's standard of life, or we're looking at people who are just a bunch of greedy, selfish bastards out to soak us for every last penny.
I see the same thing whether we're arguing the free market and capitalism or abortion in birth control. Except for rare occasions, they seem to be human beings.
But then you start to hear stories.
The Tory Agricultural Minister, Gerry Ritz, speaking in reference to the Listeriosis crisis, described it as a death of a thousand cuts “or should I say the death of a thousand cold cuts.”
Yes, those darn dead people, all 17 of them, are so inconvenient. Their deaths are getting in the way of the deregulation platform plank. If only they would remove themselves from the public eyesight, the Tories could get on with privatizing inspections of all sorts of foods so that rich people and corporations could get bigger tax cuts.
It's not important that those people are dying. It's not the tragedy of the situations, the horror of the families watching their loved ones die and their women miscarry. No, the real tragedy is the effect this is having on Gerry Ritz and the Tories.
As if to add insult to stupidity, or stupidity to insult, Gerry Ritz, upon hearing that there was a Listeriosis death in Prince Edward Island, added:
Please tell me it's Wayne Easter.
That would be the Liberal Agricultural critic, the guy who has been demanding answers about how and why the crisis happened and how the government would prevent such incidents in the future given that they are ploughing ahead with the deregulation of inspections.
Yeah, classy bunch.
You have to wonder if we're looking at a party of people who honestly believe that massive tax cuts for corporations will somehow benefit every Canadian's standard of life, or we're looking at people who are just a bunch of greedy, selfish bastards out to soak us for every last penny.
Who will invade the United States?
Earlier this week, it was announced that the Federal government was going to bail out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the two giant mortgage insurers in the United States. This is, of course, in direct violation of the free market ethic which states clearly that failing businesses must be allowed to fail. Propping up nonviable enterprises supposedly only leads to a weakened economy. This is the economic Darwinism model.
In response to this former baseball pitcher Jim Bunning (R-KY) said, "I thought I woke up in France. But no, it turns out socialism is alive and well in America."
Well, I'm sorry to say that it gets worse, Jim.
Not only are the Fed and the American government bailing out corporations, they're also Nationalizing them.
Nationalize? Isn't that the root word of "Nazi" as well as the soul of godless Communism? I can't believe George Bush and his toadies have given over to socialism.
The only question is now: will anyone invade the U.S. and overthrow this communist dictatorship? If there's one thing we know it's that socialism never, ever, ever works. It just leads to impoverished people living the everyday horror of public medicine and public education. It leads to having your nation blockaded and sanctioned and all sorts of turmoil.
In fact, in every South American country that has tried it, there have been vicious coups: in Chile in 1973; in Venezuela at least twice in the last six years; in Nicaragua in the 1980s. Yes, socialism leads to violence.
So who will rescue the poor American people from this socialist evil? Who will march an army in to the United States, occupy Washington D.C., get loans from the IMF and World Bank and impose austerity measures on the government of the United States? Maybe China or Russia could do it, in the name of liberation of course. In theory Canada and Mexico could do it but the Canadian snowmobile army doesn't run very well in the American winter and I've been told that Mexicans never learn to speak English so they'd run in to language problems.
But it maybe impossible for the Chinese Army to reach North America for lack of transport capacity. And alas the Russians are busy fighting with the Georgians. We can only hope that George Bush and his people see the error of their ways and return to the only real workable model for democracy: cutthroat free market capitalism. Any other option is simply not freedom.
In response to this former baseball pitcher Jim Bunning (R-KY) said, "I thought I woke up in France. But no, it turns out socialism is alive and well in America."
Well, I'm sorry to say that it gets worse, Jim.
Not only are the Fed and the American government bailing out corporations, they're also Nationalizing them.
Nationalize? Isn't that the root word of "Nazi" as well as the soul of godless Communism? I can't believe George Bush and his toadies have given over to socialism.
The only question is now: will anyone invade the U.S. and overthrow this communist dictatorship? If there's one thing we know it's that socialism never, ever, ever works. It just leads to impoverished people living the everyday horror of public medicine and public education. It leads to having your nation blockaded and sanctioned and all sorts of turmoil.
In fact, in every South American country that has tried it, there have been vicious coups: in Chile in 1973; in Venezuela at least twice in the last six years; in Nicaragua in the 1980s. Yes, socialism leads to violence.
So who will rescue the poor American people from this socialist evil? Who will march an army in to the United States, occupy Washington D.C., get loans from the IMF and World Bank and impose austerity measures on the government of the United States? Maybe China or Russia could do it, in the name of liberation of course. In theory Canada and Mexico could do it but the Canadian snowmobile army doesn't run very well in the American winter and I've been told that Mexicans never learn to speak English so they'd run in to language problems.
But it maybe impossible for the Chinese Army to reach North America for lack of transport capacity. And alas the Russians are busy fighting with the Georgians. We can only hope that George Bush and his people see the error of their ways and return to the only real workable model for democracy: cutthroat free market capitalism. Any other option is simply not freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)