Lies Journalists tell...

For the sake of clarity, honesty and to dispel any homosexual trepidation I would like it to be known that I, a heterosexual male with a security clearance, had to provide information on my sexual preference and my partner by specifying that I was married and by providing my wife's name, the names of her parents, where she worked, where they worked etc, etc, ect. 

Wake the fuck up people it's a security clearance not the pass-code to the McDonald's lounge area!

I hate this sort of journalistic deceit.

Two Wolves and a Sheep

In parliament this week a long overdue bid to scrap Canada's long gun registry failed. This failure highlights the flaws in rational thinking on the part of Canadians just as much as the inherent abuses possible in a democratic system.

The greatest threat and failure of Democracy is the ability of 51% to vote away the rights of the other 49%. J.S. Mill and other heavy thinkers called this the tyranny of the majority. With the final vote on the registry tallied at 153 to 151, 50.3% of parliamentarians have indeed managed to dominate the other 49.7%.

The vote also shows the duplicity of politicians and the undue power political parties have in our system. MP's like NDP Peter Stoffer (Sackville-Eastern Shore) who promised to oppose the registry in accordance with his constituents wishes but who devolved into a partisan jellyfish at the threat of party disapproval. Then there are the countless Liberal MP's who were under orders from their leader Michael Ignatieff to vote the party line. It is hard to know how many of them voted in favour of their party and against their constituents but Ignatieff's praise of party unity ought to send a cold shiver down the spine of anyone who is interested in the preservation of political freedom and liberty in this country.

This isn't only a political failure though, it's a failure in critical thinking on the part of a lot of people.

Cast a critical eye at the original article. The inclusion of Elaine Lumley's story about her son Aidan's death is designed to pull at the heartstrings, but look at the facts. Aidan Lumley was shot and killed by an unknown assailant using a pistol in downtown Montreal. Pistols in this country have been restricted and registered weapons since 1935. This registry is for long guns only, the kinds of guns found predominately in the hands of law abiding farmers and hunters.

The Governments own statistics demonstrate just how wasteful this program has been. In 2009 all the murders committed in Canada in that year accounted for just 0.025% of crimes committed, and of that number only 1/3 were committed with a firearm. Due to the statistical information it is impossible to know how many were from long guns as opposed to pistols but I am willing to bet it was less than 1/3 of that total, so a little quick math has the homicide rate by long gun approximately at 0.0027 % of all crime in this country.

Even with the statistics above showing the almost infinitesimal percentage of crime committed with long guns the most salient point is that no crime has ever been prevented by demanding that the weapon used be registered. What do people think, that a criminal will say to himself... "Well I was going to kill the guy, but then I realized that my gun was registered so I thought I'd better not..." ridiculous!

Although rather tongue in cheek, this is something one should think of too...

Behind a Veil of Hypocrisy

There has been a lot of noise lately about banning burkas, and it is all wrong.

Most of the articles cite security concerns, or the fact that the burka is a medieval form of misogynistic discrimination. Or the claim is made that there is nothing in the Islamic religion that demands the burka to be worn, and that is used as a justification for prohibition.

All of these “reasons” are ridiculous, counterproductive and contrary to individual rights.

The security issue as presented is only an issue if the appropriate security agency does not validate that the person under the veil is in fact who they say they are. Most airports have private rooms where a female security agent can take the individual in question so that their identity can be confirmed against their passport photo.

In the event that the person under the burka refuses to be so identified then it is up to the security agent to stand by its reasonable request (and against the inevitable knee-jerk of political correctness and possible threats of violence) and deny that individual the privilege of boarding the aircraft, or gaining access into the country, whichever is the case.

Such a policy applied uniformly to any and all passengers or entrants, would soon become known and accepted by all. It is the unequal application of a weak policy or selective screening that exasperates and perpetuates the problem.

The complaint that the burka is discriminatory is a moot point. Although as a rights respecting society we should watch out for rights violations - the initiation of force or fraud - against anyone it is completely and utterly impossible to make a claim of it without proof.

If a woman in a burka were to complain to a police officer that she was being forced under threat of violence to wear a burka then in that case there would be something that could be done, using existing laws and procedures. With help she could remove herself from that abusive relationship and the person who is threatening her with harm could be charged. But without that sort of proof we must operate on the presumption that her actions are her own, and she has chosen to wear the burka. To do otherwise, and ban the garment, regardless of the good intentions or the misgivings of the majority (or even a vocal minority) would be idiotic, illiberal and heavy handed.

The third complaint is really not a reason at all but a fuzzy headed kind of logic to which predominately religious and conservative opponents cling when all their other arguments have been ignored. It is nothing less than the cry of the closeted racist… “But they don’t have to wear it so why don’t they just dress like normal people… They should have to.”

It isn’t the burka. The burka doesn’t make a woman a terrorist, its not a sign of oppression or abuse, and it doesn’t matter that it is not a necessity of the religion.

If you can not grasp these simple concepts imagine outlawing baggy pants because they made every kid a gang-banger, or jeans and a halter top because they signify abuse and degradation or imagine if crucifixes were prohibited just because there was nothing in the bible that said they aught to be worn…

Attempting to Have His Cake and Eat it Too

"When Jeremy Dyer was selected to represent his province because of his human rights art, he had no idea he'd find himself in line to shake Prime Minister Stephen Harper's hand.

The notion was an affront to Dyer, an activist who vehemently disagrees with many of Harper's policies."

Well, isn't that special.

To put this in perspective...

This young a--, activist was chosen to take a trip covering almost 3000km on the government's dime. He was put up in a hotel, at taxpayer expense and fed at government expense for the chance to get national exposure (read free publicity) for his artwork and his cause in a National (Government run) museum and when the Prime Minister shows up for the money shot - the handshake - this ungrateful little snot is rude enough to refuse to, to turn a phrase - dance with the one what brought him?

Perhaps if young Jeremy was so opposed to the government's policies he should have discovered the backbone to stand for his principles before he became the governments artistic whore, not after.

Later, talking with reporters about being asked to remove himself from the reception line, which he did, Mrs. Dyer's little boy commented that “That was the breaking point — when I was suppressed for my beliefs.”

Suppressed?! This mooching scab of an "artist" was suppressed? How? Was it the free flight, food and accommodation? The national exposure? The support of the cause of human rights as demonstrated by the PM and the government he is so quick to disrespect?

I hope that Jeremy Dyer learns a lesson from this which is best summed up by another marvellous saying, one about laying down with dogs.

Oh, I also hope that the government is paying attention. Its lesson is that Jeremy Dyer is a capricious, churlish, child and should never be given an opportunity like that ever again.

Don't Just Let Them Speak, Let Them be Heard...

Canada and Canadians have missed a huge opportunity by banning Dr. Zakir Naik from speaking in person in Toronto at "The Journey of Faith Conference".

We should have let him come, more than that we should have put someone inside that conference to video the entire thing, every speech and every speaker.

Because maybe if Joe and Jill six-pack heard one of these people claim that "every Muslim should be a terrorist," or that it's okay to beat your wife - without leaving a physical mark of course (how very moderate of him) they would realize that this is an ideology of hate and fear and that every single person in that conference is a supporter implicitly or explicitly of the destruction of our way of life.

For those that would call me intolerant I say thank you. I have no desire to develop a tolerance for evil, or the cattle that follow it.

The Face of Anarchy

There seem to be a lot of young people who sing the praises of anarchy. Anarchism advocates;

“a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy. It seeks to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations.”
*

The Anarchist will tell you that it is the state or capitalism or the world bank, or some conspiracy of rich and powerful that is responsible for the woes of modern society. They will tell you that if we were all just free to act as individuals without the confines of state or multinational corporations with their laws and force, money and power we would all be better off.

Right.

Last weekend Toronto got to see what anarchy really breeds. It’s not peace, it’s not freedom, it is brutal, mindless violence and destruction. It is the law of the pack, and as an individual you are one with the pack or you are its prey.

Now I do not hold a Hobbesian view of man. I do not believe that a man must completely subordinate himself to a “sovereign” (state or king) or face a life that is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”, but I do believe that there is a proper place for the state as a protector of unalienable rights and those rights alone can make individuals sovereign.

The Anarchist dismisses the role of the state, and while they lay claim to some notion of rights they rely on the individual alone to assert his own individual sovereignty, they call for each man to be his own law. The result of course is that if one man's “law” is stronger than another's, by hook or by crook, with no one to counter their will or force, then the brute will win, and the weaker man will loose.

Now the Anarchists involved with the G20 protests would probably tell you that they only vandalized the apparatus of the state - police cars and the like - or the establishment - multinational corporations and banks. What is more they would claim that this vandalism is in keeping with their view of sovereign individuals, but those attacks are a dire warning to any real individual.

The small businessman ought not to heave a sigh of relief at being spared this weekend but he and everyone else ought to consider that under anarchy, the moment the mob recognizes you or your life’s work as established (and by definition, of the establishment) then you are doomed. Any right to property or person that you may have had while the mob’s focus was elsewhere is gone, suddenly you are not a person; you are not of the mob. You don’t matter.

Dog eat Dog is a euphemism often used in conjunction with capitalism and capitalists but I’ve yet to see a businessman operate with the sheer animal violence of the Anarchists. So when you watch TV tonight and you see the businessman cleaning his ruined storefront and when the news flashes the images of black clad hoodlums smashing burning and destroying bear in mind that you are seeing both the true face of capitalism (productive effort) and Anarchism (mindless destruction).

Dr. Alice Mengele

I find it unfathomable that this article is categorized under "Best Doctors".

Here is a woman who is basically bragging about having "rehabilitated" a cold blooded killer. A man who would kill anyone for the right amount of cash. Who shows no remorse and thinks of his murders as "another day at the office".

What'smore, reading the comments section I'm flabbergasted that the only thing that bothers the commentators on the page (presumably other doctors) is that the article claims that a psychologist prescribed meds...

This article doesn't showcase ethical action but moral apathy. It's not that this "doctor" doesn't recognize that her patient is an evil cold blooded murderer it's that her position as a Doctor has given her a free pass at having to judge the moral from the immoral. What an abject failure this woman is as a rational human being.

I will go farther. She is evil. Pure unmitigated evil. She is right up there with the guards at Dachau and Auschwitz claiming ignorance and innocence because they didn't actually drop the gas pellets into the chambers, or stuff bodies into the ovens.

"Best Doctor" eh? Well done Dr. Alice Mengele.

You First.

Well here it is, finally, spelled out without any ambiguities, with no equivocation and no weasel words.

In one concise article Mr. Singer says what a good deal of environmentalists are afraid to. Which is to say that he says what they wilfully evade, that the end result, the final solution of their Green fascism is the end of humanity.

Well I for one would like to invite them all, each and every one to do away with themselves, in whatever ecologically sound manner they wish of course.

So Mr. Singer, Mr. Benatar... This is your philosophy, and since all philosophies are constructed to show man how he ought to live, I hope you will have the intestinal fortitude and courage to live by yours.

Oh, don't get me wrong I'm not asking you to do something I wouldn't. I do my very best to live my life by my philosophy (Objectivism), its just that were we both to do so, you would see that your philosophy leads you to your death and mine encourages me to live.

So lets both start...

You will go first.

Imagine...

"From this distance, it's easy to be sanctimonious about Israel's commando raid on the Turkish flotilla, and costless to be naive about the motives of those onboard.

Read the whole thing...

Socialists Don't Understand The Nature of Work

This article exemplifies the difference between those that do deserve bonuses and those that don’t. Pat Martin’s statement that; “The Bank of Canada is not a private business. It's not tied to performance or productivity outcomes, it's not a profit-making venture where you can measure a good year from a bad year ... What is the merit they are being rewarded for, coming to work on time?" is absurd, ignorant and disrespectful.

The comment is absurd because as long as this country has a public service it should strive to have the best possible public service. That means to have people who work their asses off to do the best possible job. It is common for corporations to give huge bonuses to their top performers if the public service wants to attract any of that sort of talent they must compete, they must show their employees that they are valued and that their work is valued and that productivity and excellence is recognized.

Mr. Martin’s comment demonstrates his ignorance of the nature of the work that goes on in the Bank of Canada. Canada has come out of the global recession far in advance of the rest of its G8 and G20 counterparts due in no small way to the prudent fiscal policies and monetary controls instituted by none other than The Bank of Canada. For Mr. Martin to then lambaste the Bank’s executives (people who work so very hard behind the scenes) as not deserving of bonuses because the crown corporation doesn’t produce profits is to ignore the immense benefit that those policies and controls provide to Canadians and Canadian corporations,,, Talk about the creation of profit! When the rest of the worlds banks are being wiped out not a single Canadian Bank has even come close. When sovereign debts in Europe are being downgraded and nations fear economic collapse Canada is rebounding stronger than any other country on the planet.

Mr. Martin’s words are disrespectful of workers and executives everywhere. They imply that Mr. Martin believes only if a profit is made is a person working hard enough to earn a bonus. Perhaps he, as a public servant, isn’t deserving of a gold plated pension for only working 6 years maybe he ought to work for 20 or 25 years first. After All Mr. Martin has produced even less profit as an MP than the good people at the Bank of Canada.

But the ideological heart of the matter is revealed when “Martin argues the system creates divisiveness among public sector workers -- labelling some as winners and some as losers -- he's most worried about their effect on productivity.”. You see in the socialist world everyone is a winner, which is to say that they all loose equally. There is no such thing as equality among and between people. You can’t create it, enforce it or demand it. There is no way to have a functioning society if you can not even bring yourself to admit that some people are smarter, more industrious and more driven than others. The blind equality that would see no one
praised for effort or productivity is the end result of the failed socialism of the USSR and its satellites.

If you want to negatively effect productivity in a workplace tell everyone that no one will be recognized for their effort. What is the end result of a place like that? Well it isn’t a rush for excellence. It’s a slow and steady decline, a march to the lowest common denominator. As Russians working in state sponsored factories used to quip about that very same sort of system. “They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.”

It’s a strange sort of schism that a socialist like Mr. Martin, indeed I would argue all socialists, do not understand the nature of work as being an essential part of the human experience. The benefit in work to the individual is not in the work itself but in the personal satisfaction in and the recognition of the work itself.

Only a complete imbecile would believe that the world will be a better place when everyone from the Doctor to the ditch-digger is equally valued and earns the same wage and praise.

Buried Chest High...

Push and We Push Back...

I wasn't going to get involved with "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day"on the 20th as advertised here, and elsewhere... That is until I saw this.

So here he is.

Although, as of yet no one has tried to do the same here I have no doubt that Islamofascists would try if they thought they could get away with it.

Regardless, here is a little bit of advice for any would be Islamic fanatics out there. If you try to push your nonsense onto our way of life, if you try for the sake of stupid superstition to limit our freedoms, if you threaten and if you cajole... we will push back. And you will loose.

By the way... my response is the same to Christian fanatics that want to force their particular brand of stupidity down our throats.

Believe what you want, that is your right but your right ends where my right begins.

Iggynoramus and the Clowns of Parliament

This is absolutely hilarious, and sad.

You see, not only do the Liberals not stand for anything but their positions are so inscrutable, unfathomable and so completely devoid of any principle that they themselves don't know how to vote because they can't keep their convoluted positions clear in their own heads.

There is an old Chinese proverb "The man who takes the straight road never gets lost."

Haitian Earthquake & global warming

Well if Danny Glover says it it must be true...

What is that old saying about staying silent and being thought a fool, and opening your mouth and removing all doubt?

Danny, you are a fool.

Old PM's Don't Die...

They go to Copenhagen to say stupid shit.

Ignoring for a moment that Anthropological Global Warming is bunk, or at the very least not science, is this guy serious?

Climate Panic

Hmmm...

Eh?

You can almost taste the panic, and it has nothing to do with Arctic Ice, Polar Bears, the eventual disappearance of the Maldives, the Amazonian rain forest, at risk species or environmental disaster.

Cap and Enslave

This is Liberals threatening to do what Liberals(socialists) do best...

Take your hard earned money and give it to people who haven't earned it. This plan makes a virtual slave of the Canadian economy and Canadian business. For the sake of what... Global warming, something that is either a natural cyclic occurrence or a big fat lie.

Cap and Trade = Wealth redistribution. The liberals want us to count on buying carbon credits from third world dictators and despots, so that we Canadians can continue to produce goods and services in order to live in the manner that we work for, which in turn makes this country the envy of every single one of those third world thugs. This is the actualization of the punishment of the good for being good. Our productivity is what is being paid for here, not global warming. AGW is a theory at best, and as pointed out elsewhere in this post it may in fact be a complete fabrication.

The fact that this plan to screw the Canadian economy (and Canadian business) comes out the same week as Climategate is astounding.

News today is that PM Harper will be going to Copenhagen for the climate summit. I hope he's there to deliver this...

Scandal, Evasion and Distraction: A Flow Chart of Modern Government.

What is it that leads governments to believe that they can hide, evade or deny their actions and the scandals they create?

Take this ridiculous example. Everyone, EVERYONE! knows there are people being tortured in Afghanistan, indeed it would be much more newsworthy to have a headline that read; "No Afghan Prisoners Have Been Tortured", and to have it be true.

The level of evasion necessary for the PMO and the government to claim that they "didn't know" is Herculean, but only slightly more so than that required by the opposition parties, the press' talking heads and us dumb voters to act surprised and outraged by it.

But this story is a mere blip on the radar. Much more important is the question why Governments think that they can hide things like this? What are they hoping to do? I believe there is a pattern here... scandal, evade, distract, (repeat if necessary).

Here's my theory...

All governments start off like the Hollywood starlet with the good girl image, and we voters are like smitten fans, happy (for the most part) with the choice we have made in the aftermath of an election.

But this electoral honeymoon is short lived. It doesn't take long before our sweetheart is rumored to be less than pure, and sure enough the sex tape emerges.

Our governments in scandal are just like that starlet. They divorce their actions from any possible repercussions. Then even when they are discovered on all fours taking it like a pro (metaphorically speaking) they deny even the possibility that they have done anything wrong.

We, voters (fans) are left either sputtering in disbelief, or cynically nodding our heads in disgust, but only for so long, only until the next political porn, a fiasco, another boondoggle, some scandal, heaven forbid there be a somethingorother-gate.

Then, not unlike the pathetic guy watching that starlet's home video, we are distracted by the next outrage, more outrageous than the last outrage.

So we go, from scandal to scandal, but rarely do we do anything other than bitch about it over coffee, because...

"did you hear...???"

Doomed to Repeat it...

*

"With interest rates at zero, monetary engines humming as never before, and a self-proclaimed Keynesian government, we are back again embracing the brave new era of government-sponsored prosperity and debt. And, more than ever, the system is piling uncertainties on top of uncertainties, turning an otherwise resilient economy into a brittle one."

That's it.

I'm going to save the planet.

I'm going to train my dog to eat environmentalists...