... the Liberal and Conservative parties declared that democracy has died in Canada.
Oh, no, wait. They just declared that the issue of the alleged attempt to bribe Chuck Cadman in to voting in step with the Conservative Party to bring down the Liberal government of Paul Martin, is a dead issue.
What do they mean by "the matter was dropped"? Are the Liberals, under that sycophant to the wealthy Michael Ignatieff, really telling us that there was no attempt to bribe Chuck Cadman? Am I really supposed to be happy to know that no one will be held accountable - in our supposed democracy - when the attempt to bribe an MP in a confidence vote is caught on tape?
Michael, you wuss, that'd better not be what it means.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Thursday, February 05, 2009
You Can't Be Good Without God.
I suppose that's what the Metro Transit Authority in Halifax is telling us when they denied the Humanists an opportunity to advertise on the sides of buses.
Indeed. I can't wait for the obvious corollaries to come through on a broad statement like that. I'm rather offended, quite personally and honestly, when politicians tell us that atheists can't be trusted because we don't believe in god.
The Humanists are simply responding to that multitude of religious people that insist religion and god-belief are necessary for morality, thereby insinuating that the rest of us are incapable of morality. The Humanists are saying that we can be good without god.
And this is controversial?
This stands, to me, as the typical rant of the religious. They get to swing their fists wherever they want: insulting us; tricking our children in to their cult; using our tax dollars to fund their worship. And if ever we tell them to stop insulting us and to leave our children alone then we are persecuting them. Suddenly, it's so difficult to be in that gigantic majority of Christiandom because they're not allowed to punch us in the face with their dogma.
Yes, I can see how that could be offensive: announcing that some of us, despite everything their priests have told them, can lead moral lives without their religion. I can see how that must grate on their nerves. After all of the abuse and scorn they've been permitted to heap on us, after all the nonsense they've taught their children about us, they're forced to face the truth that some of us actually lead decent lives without being cajoled or threatened with eternal damnation. What will their children think of this?
Yeah, that must really tick them off.
h/t to Red Tory.
"So, if anytime we feel there's a message that could be controversial and upsetting to people, we don't necessarily sell the ads."
Indeed. I can't wait for the obvious corollaries to come through on a broad statement like that. I'm rather offended, quite personally and honestly, when politicians tell us that atheists can't be trusted because we don't believe in god.
The Humanists are simply responding to that multitude of religious people that insist religion and god-belief are necessary for morality, thereby insinuating that the rest of us are incapable of morality. The Humanists are saying that we can be good without god.
And this is controversial?
This stands, to me, as the typical rant of the religious. They get to swing their fists wherever they want: insulting us; tricking our children in to their cult; using our tax dollars to fund their worship. And if ever we tell them to stop insulting us and to leave our children alone then we are persecuting them. Suddenly, it's so difficult to be in that gigantic majority of Christiandom because they're not allowed to punch us in the face with their dogma.
Yes, I can see how that could be offensive: announcing that some of us, despite everything their priests have told them, can lead moral lives without their religion. I can see how that must grate on their nerves. After all of the abuse and scorn they've been permitted to heap on us, after all the nonsense they've taught their children about us, they're forced to face the truth that some of us actually lead decent lives without being cajoled or threatened with eternal damnation. What will their children think of this?
Yeah, that must really tick them off.
h/t to Red Tory.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Sam Harris, Sir, You Rule
Over at richarddawkins.net, there's an essay by Jerry Coyne on the subject of religion and science running together and how some scientists manage to remain religious.
The good stuff comes from the responses by various scientists (religious and not) of import and how they deal with the situation. After you've read Krauss's bit on how it's not worth the time to argue with the religious and Dyson's bit on how the number of books reconciling science and religion is a sign of success at doing so, scroll down to Sam Harris's eloquent essay.
Remember to wear goggles. The sarcasm ... it burns.
The good stuff comes from the responses by various scientists (religious and not) of import and how they deal with the situation. After you've read Krauss's bit on how it's not worth the time to argue with the religious and Dyson's bit on how the number of books reconciling science and religion is a sign of success at doing so, scroll down to Sam Harris's eloquent essay.
Remember to wear goggles. The sarcasm ... it burns.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Oh, no! Not Marijuana!
How can it be? How can it be!
I didn't want to believe it, but he admitted to it! The world's favourite 23-year-old swimming superstar now outed as a heavy drug user when a picture came out on the interwebs of him using ...
What?
Marijuana?
Omigod, people, get a grip.
I suppose we should expect Americans to explode this way, after the way they exploded when they Janet Jackson's breast appeared on television for some fraction of a second. But really. What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
The last time a Canadian Olympian got caught green-handed, remember that? Rebagliatti? Marijuana in his urine? Our whole country was up in arms demanding that he keep his gold medal because a) marijuana isn't a performance enhancing drug and b) it's marijuana, not crack.
Sheesh, people. He's human. And 23. And a superstar. You should be happy it's only weed.
I didn't want to believe it, but he admitted to it! The world's favourite 23-year-old swimming superstar now outed as a heavy drug user when a picture came out on the interwebs of him using ...
What?
Marijuana?
Omigod, people, get a grip.
I suppose we should expect Americans to explode this way, after the way they exploded when they Janet Jackson's breast appeared on television for some fraction of a second. But really. What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
The last time a Canadian Olympian got caught green-handed, remember that? Rebagliatti? Marijuana in his urine? Our whole country was up in arms demanding that he keep his gold medal because a) marijuana isn't a performance enhancing drug and b) it's marijuana, not crack.
Sheesh, people. He's human. And 23. And a superstar. You should be happy it's only weed.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Ladies and Gentlemen, It's Class Warfare Time
Okay, it's not burning rich people over the spit and making their wives eat their roasted flesh, but it's still setting a maximum salary for private executives, so at least it's a step away from idolizing the rich.
I can't say whether this is a good thing from an economic point of view, but it's nice to see Americans stop touting the majesty and effervescent economic aura of the wealthy.
I can't say whether this is a good thing from an economic point of view, but it's nice to see Americans stop touting the majesty and effervescent economic aura of the wealthy.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Do They Use Editors at the G&M?
Read this article and try to make sense of it.
Okay. So the ceasefire was apparently broken by Hamas's roadside bomb to which Israel retaliated with an air strike. The article points out that the bomb may have been planted before the ceasefire, but that's not the point. The point is: Hamas went first; then Israel.
Read on.
And this happened before or after the roadside bomb? And how can anything in such a small area be considered "unconnected"?
The article says that Israel declared a ceasefire on January 17 and Hamas followed suit. Except ...
Er, what? In "the days"? How many days? How many shells? Why isn't the fact that Israel continued shelling Gaza after "unilaterally declaring a ceasefire" up near the top of the article where Hamas is blamed for breaking the ceasefire?
If we're supposed to consider the Globe and Mail to be a newspaper, shouldn't they edit these articles so we can tell in what order the events happened? Did the Israelis kill 3 farmers, during a ceasefire, to which Hamas responded by using an IED to kill 3 soldiers? Or was it the other way around?
Events happen in relation to time. Believe it or not, it actually matters which ones happen first.
The Islamic Hamas movement says one of its members has been wounded in an Israeli air strike in the southern Gaza Strip.
The air strike comes hours after a roadside bomb along Israel's border with Gaza killed an Israeli soldier and wounded three others.
Okay. So the ceasefire was apparently broken by Hamas's roadside bomb to which Israel retaliated with an air strike. The article points out that the bomb may have been planted before the ceasefire, but that's not the point. The point is: Hamas went first; then Israel.
Read on.
In what appeared to be an unconnected incident Tuesday, Palestinian security officials said Israeli troops along the border shot and killed a 27-year-old man and wounded two others. Dr. Moaiya Hassanain of Gaza's Health Ministry said the dead man was a farmer. The military had no immediate comment.
And this happened before or after the roadside bomb? And how can anything in such a small area be considered "unconnected"?
The article says that Israel declared a ceasefire on January 17 and Hamas followed suit. Except ...
In the days immediately following the ceasefire there was shelling by Israeli gunboats and some gunfire along the border — including the killing of two men Palestinian officials identified as farmers — but there were no serious clashes until Tuesday.
Er, what? In "the days"? How many days? How many shells? Why isn't the fact that Israel continued shelling Gaza after "unilaterally declaring a ceasefire" up near the top of the article where Hamas is blamed for breaking the ceasefire?
If we're supposed to consider the Globe and Mail to be a newspaper, shouldn't they edit these articles so we can tell in what order the events happened? Did the Israelis kill 3 farmers, during a ceasefire, to which Hamas responded by using an IED to kill 3 soldiers? Or was it the other way around?
Events happen in relation to time. Believe it or not, it actually matters which ones happen first.
The Gullible & Mail
The writers at the Globe and Mail have always been full of naivety whenever it comes to Prime Minister Harper and they're continuing in that vein today.
Oh, yes. Harper is contrite. Harper is friendly. He's compromising and consulting now. Especially if you compare him to the guy who tried to bankrupt all of the other parties by taking away - retroactively even - their public funding. That works fine for the Party of the Wealthy and its big business donors. It doesn't work as well for parties supported by working people and the poor.
But how gullible is the Globe and Mail?
In the past election, they endorsed him. I wrote about how they highlighted his stubbornness, his vengeful nature and his my-way-or-the-highway history and still endorsed him on account of the fact that he was "a different Stephen Harper". They wrote that he deserved a majority where we would be stuck with him for five years.
Then the real Stephen Harper reared his head, spouting flames, and tried to destroy his opponents with a cheap, back-door bankrupting trick. This got their backs up so thoroughly that had to prorogue Parliament. Now Stephen Harper comes back "contrite" and "compromising" and the G&M headlines the article with "Harper's words carry a softer tone"?
There's a point where, no matter how apologetic he gets, you have to leave a guy who slaps you around.
Stephen Harper's government opened the new Parliament with an atypical tone of contrition, in a Throne Speech that spoke of compromise and consultation and borrowed phrases from opponent Michael Ignatieff.
Mr. Harper had used past Throne Speeches to launch games of political chicken with adversaries, daring them to vote against plans they disliked and then face an election.
Oh, yes. Harper is contrite. Harper is friendly. He's compromising and consulting now. Especially if you compare him to the guy who tried to bankrupt all of the other parties by taking away - retroactively even - their public funding. That works fine for the Party of the Wealthy and its big business donors. It doesn't work as well for parties supported by working people and the poor.
But how gullible is the Globe and Mail?
In the past election, they endorsed him. I wrote about how they highlighted his stubbornness, his vengeful nature and his my-way-or-the-highway history and still endorsed him on account of the fact that he was "a different Stephen Harper". They wrote that he deserved a majority where we would be stuck with him for five years.
Then the real Stephen Harper reared his head, spouting flames, and tried to destroy his opponents with a cheap, back-door bankrupting trick. This got their backs up so thoroughly that had to prorogue Parliament. Now Stephen Harper comes back "contrite" and "compromising" and the G&M headlines the article with "Harper's words carry a softer tone"?
There's a point where, no matter how apologetic he gets, you have to leave a guy who slaps you around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)