Zorg Report
Initially a miscellany, but became more political/current affairs oriented; hopes to return to a more miscellaneous outlook.
Saturday, 15 January 2022
SK Update
(CP-Reuters) SK Update: Premier Moe Tests Positive for Covid--Doctors Predict Steep Decline in Vehicular Homicides for Province
Wednesday, 3 April 2019
Jason Kenney discusses leaving his mother’s basement, taking only one taxpayer cheque, etc.with Duane Bratt of 1handsomeshill.com
(Well, they didn’t really get
around to it, this time.)
DR: Jason, you’re just so. . .
JK: I know, awesome.
DR: But so. . .
JK Yes.
DR: I’ve been, I’ve been. . .
JK: Yes.
DR: Behind you so long.
JK: Yes Duane.
DR: Soooooo
loooooong
JK: Ah, yes. AHh. But
when I’m
DR: sooooooo looooong
JK: Pre-E-emier,
you’re not
JK/DR: you know you love
Me I do. I do. . .and
you won’t be able to
Shill!! Shill! for
Me no more.
Uuuuuuhhhhhhhhh.
JK: Now it will be different, Duane
uuuuhhhh
Duane?
JK: Now we will need fake credentialed people to Prop Up our
agenda
Hmmmhmmmmmmm
JK: Are you gonna be ready?
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
JK: Do whatever it takes?
mmmmmmmmmmm
JK: Good.
mmmmmm
JK: I’ll send a cheque.
Jason, Jason….
JK: It’s PREE-em-ier
DR: yes yes
JK: PREE-em-ier
DR: yes yes
JK: always Yes
DR: yes, always Yes
JK: Okay
DR: nnnnhhhhhh nhnn Yes
Tuesday, 2 April 2019
Canada's Sports Cartel - Sportsnet and TSN Unite to Defeat Women's Hockey
I am really disappointed to hear about the CWHL, or for that matter, the NWHL.
I'm a man. Have I ever gone to their games? No. I can't even afford a junior game, let alone let alone let alone let alone an NHL one.
But I have to watch darts and card games and "wrestling" endlessly, when there are really great women playing hockey that, sure, you bet, I'd watch for a while.
Did I think women's hockey was great 20-30 years ago? No. Should they be allowed to play more physically? Yes. (Most of them are bigger and tougher than I am, so. . . . .)
This one lies straight at the door of Canada's sports cartel, Sportsnet and TSN. They are willing to show us any dreck--pasty pimply basement dwellers so ugly they have to wear shades and baseball caps playing poker, for example--but they can't show us top-flight women playing hi-tempo puck.
I am at a loss on this one. A good women's hockey game beats most of what Sportsnet and TSN have on 18 hours a day. For shame.
zr
I'm a man. Have I ever gone to their games? No. I can't even afford a junior game, let alone let alone let alone let alone an NHL one.
But I have to watch darts and card games and "wrestling" endlessly, when there are really great women playing hockey that, sure, you bet, I'd watch for a while.
Did I think women's hockey was great 20-30 years ago? No. Should they be allowed to play more physically? Yes. (Most of them are bigger and tougher than I am, so. . . . .)
This one lies straight at the door of Canada's sports cartel, Sportsnet and TSN. They are willing to show us any dreck--pasty pimply basement dwellers so ugly they have to wear shades and baseball caps playing poker, for example--but they can't show us top-flight women playing hi-tempo puck.
I am at a loss on this one. A good women's hockey game beats most of what Sportsnet and TSN have on 18 hours a day. For shame.
zr
Sunday, 31 January 2016
Sarah truths
No, it wasn't the fact of hispanics being rapists, or drug lords, or criminals; it was just those "democrats" coming across the border.
Glad we got that over with.
--zr
Glad we got that over with.
--zr
Saturday, 2 May 2015
Extreme Entitlement, Alberta Style: Conservative Christine Cusanelli Pounces on the Public Teat
Extreme Entitlement, Alberta Style:
Conservative Christine Cusanelli Pounces on the Public Teat
Oh well, I’ve had little to say on the Alberta election—who
ever would, since governments change in Alberta in more or less the same way as
they did in the Soviet Union or under the PRI in Mexico. No dictator, anywhere, could ever look down
more fondly and patronizingly ("math is hard, Miss Notchley") upon the Alberta
electorate than a Tory leader. Even
Robert Mugabe must have taken a lot of notes, over time.
Still, I’m writing this post because I just have to say that
it really stuck in my craw, big time, when I actually got a call from a
semi-English speaking member of Cusanelli’s “team.” Oh I’d like to believe that he was just one
great big idealist who loved Cusanelli, but, after nearly ½ century, I think I
can be excused for kind of doubting that he was just there for the stale
doughnuts and warm coffee (sorry, scotch and steak, if you’re a PC).
Tory robo-calling is all-out now, with voters in Alberta getting nearly
constant taped fright calls (what, couldn’t they actually find a warm body?)
about the possibility of electing a party other than the PCs. If you know you’re losing, and you have no
volunteers, and you resort to canned scare calls. . .well, just sayin.’
Cusanelli, though, of Calgary-Currie, probably will win on
May 5, and thus score her lifetime pension by being elected twice. She could face a bit of opposition from the
right, but it’s not all that likely. No,
all probability suggests that she will be re-elected (visit her site, I guess,
to find out what she did in her first elected term) and score that automatic
lifetime entitlement that comes automatically along with being elected twice
for the PCs. Frankly, I’m amazed the PCs
would have elected her to run as their candidate again, but so they did, for
entitlement runs deep.
You wouldn’t have heard of Cusanelli, because, well, why
would you have, unless you’d noted her very first actions in public office: to
start sucking madly, voraciously, like some kind of bionic polyp, on the public
teat. She instantly took her mother and
daughter to the London Olympics on taxpayer money (yours and mine), and charged
up an astounding amount of expenses billed to—you and me—taxpayers, including a
$100 Starbucks gift card. I kinda doubt
Christine ever bought a $100 Starbucks gift card for herself, or anyone else,
before she was elected as a PC and instantly introduced into cabinet by Alison
Redford, but as soon as she could start sucking on the public teat like a
crazed woman, she let loose with all barrels.
It’s all there in black and white, or at least the parts the public are
allowed to see:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/sports/Calgary+Christine+Cusanelli+repays+taxpayers+after+flying+family+members+Olympics/7658409/story.html
I think Cusanelli’s actions say things about her, and her
party.
[Funny thing, Cusanelli was supposedly a school
administrator before she sought the Tories.
Interesting. She might have had a
good pension in that job, but the allure of the public teat and Tory
entitlement must have been overwhelming—the carte
blanche of the PCs was irresistible even to someone who _had_ what would look like a fulfilling and
well-pensioned position. So much for
smelly, runny-nosed kids—Christine had her eye on a much bigger prize she could
bag in 8 years or less, forget 25.]
Further, Cusanelli’s sense of entitlement must go back to her family and her upbringing. It may be that she coveted the Tories and the lifetime pension it brings and is about to bring her, and it may be that her good family just kept supporting her. Good. But if I just got a new job, and I told my family, “hey, folks, we’re all going to
For shame, for shame.
Second, the Alberta Conservatives took Christine’s attempts
to gouge taxpayers in stride. Sure, she
wasn’t in the cabinet anymore, but hey, she’s our gal, is what the Alberta PC
government and the good burghers of the Calgary-Currie riding association had
to say. Who knows, maybe the executive
of the Calgary-Currie PC riding association had already done, over their
lifetimes, a little of the ol’ public “gouging” themselves. I don’t know.
But it says something about the Calgary-Currie PCs that they’d get
behind an MLA whose first actions in office were to start sucking, egregiously,
on the taxpayer teat. Ask yourself—would
you have done it? And if you would have,
why? Had you done it yourself and found
it to be enjoyable and rewarding behaviour?
Only PC executives can answer that one.
So anyway, desperate, fearmongering PCs, quit calling
me. I wouldn’t even have been stirred to
write this post if I hadn’t gotten so many paranoid PC calls. Who are the PCs afraid of? The people? Christine will get in again and
get a gold-plated pension for less than 8 years of work (since T-Bird Jim
Prentice busted the PCs’s own legislation about “fixed” elections). When she retires, years and even decades
before many, she’ll be able to do many London
junkets, on taxpayer money. Albertans will
have reassured themselves, as they have for nearly a half century, that they’d
done the right thing, and that, in the interests of investment and job
creation, Christine’s flying around the world with her family really and truly
were tremendously worth it. I’m sure
Christine Cusanelli’s contributions to public life will, by that time, have
been absolutely legendary.
--zr
Thursday, 16 April 2015
Ferguson Jenkins: Best NHL Hall-of-Famer Canada Never Had?
Abstract: Baseball has
begun again. The Cubs have a new
manager, by any estimation a fine man and fine baseball mind, Joe Maddon. They also have about seven top shortstop
prospects. Can the Cubs go all the way
in 2016 or 2017? We’ll see. This post is about the 1974 National Film
Board Donald Brittain documentary, King of the Hill, in turn about Ferguson
Jenkins and the Cubs in ’72-’73. Don’t
bother with this post; just watch the documentary: https://www.nfb.ca/film/king_of_the_hill (You can also find it on youtube, just as you
can Dennis Martinez’s Perfect Game, which I wrote about a long time ago on this
blog.) If Frank Mahovolich can become a senator, then how, in the world, didn't Ferguson Jenkins?
For those parched nomadic Expos fans out there. . .there is
no relief. There is none.
Yes, we were the champions in ’94. . . .
By any “metric,” and any non-metric, Chatham , Ontario ’s
Ferguson Jenkins put up just about the best numbers one could conceivably put
up—mostly with the Cubs . (!)
For any baseball fans out there, check out King of the
Hill (1974), an hour-long documentary about Fergie, following him from spring
training to. . .well, it’s the Cubs, off-season hunting and fishing (in NL!!!). It’s an NFB (National Film Board) production,
made and narrated by the redoubtable Donald Brittain, who also brought you
unforgettable portraits of people like Leonard Cohen, if you weren’t watching (https://www.nfb.ca/film/mesdames_et_messieurs_m_leonard_cohen).
Brittain’s dry, repressed, “I’m-almost-afraid-of-doing/saying-this-on-film”
narration actually works well, all these decades down the road, for those of us
who still love baseball love the dry and wry, nostalgic and modern-weary
delivery, just like we like the canny Woody Fryman or Doyle Alexander pulling
the string on those kids, just one more time.
It isn’t that we’re old farts; we just appreciate it more, each time it
happens, because it reminds us that we aren’t old farts, and once upon a time,
we didn’t have to pull that string. In a
way that never could have been grasped in 1974, Donald Brittain actually makes
a great throwback commentator for today—the same ones you Cardinals and Padres
fans of today, and ye old Tigers fans of yesteryear, clutch so close. No, for anyone who watches this documentary
and finds the voiceover silly, I say this to you: “Yes, it is incredibly
silly. It was incontestably silly in
1974, when there were helicopter shirt collars and bell bottoms that could make
you Mary Poppins on a steam-grate, but now, in our petticoated age of mass porn
and invented heritage, it strikes. . .just. . .the right. . .note. . .for
baseball.”
And if you listen (and watch) carefully, of course, Brittain
is very sly and ironic, in a way
those who love and appreciate the game will grin at, rather than rebuke.
I’m kinda starting to feel it, so should stop. The ways I could conflate baseball and
society and morality are almost limitless.
Therefore, I’ll draw it down to three (all probably related) things that
really stood out for me in the documentary (other than Joe Pepitone at first,
for you ball fans out there):
1) NHL star--about
17:20, Fergie’s dad talking about what a great hockey player Fergie was, and
about his mom. We sports fans, we all
live in the world of what-ifs, especially in baseball, but if you can imagine
Fergie’s frame and touch and talent, and pace
the Herb Carnegies and Will O’Ree’s and Mike Marstons, well, it’s hard, so very
hard not to think that Ferguson Jenkins would have been a once-in-a-generation
winger, warding off bodies and settling pucks for goals or assists like few
others of his time. Odd that, although
we congratulate ourselves, in Canada ,
that Jackie Robinson could play for the Montreal Royals, we (our “values”?)
elide what others might have done. (To
read more about Herb Carnegie, see: http://www.amazon.ca/Fly-Pail-Milk-Carnegie-Story/dp/0889626049). It’s a sad reflection, but based on any
evidence, probably a true one, that Ferguson Jenkins had a lot more opportunity
to pursue his athletic talents in the U.S.
than he did in Canada . Oh, it’s complicated, but maybe not that much.
Fairly: It’s a tough fuckin’ ballpark.
--zr
Thursday, 9 April 2015
Always Join a Club of Which You Weren't a Member: Mike Duffy and the Senate
Abstract: Whatever happens in the Mike Duffy trial, let’s
not forget one thing: Duffy watched the Senate for decades, and he wanted a
part of it. Whatever might be said of
his actions, or of the (comically alleged) hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil,
see-no-evil members of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s most intimate inner circle,
the Duffster knew, from long, long experience, that the Senate was the place to
be for easy money. That the Duffster, an
ultimate insider, knew what the Senate was like for so long, and so desperately
longed to get into it, should make all Liberal and Conservative supporters
wonder why they so enthusiastically support, for purely partisan reasons, the
red chamber. That’s red as in your money
disappearing.
Sure the Duffy trial is annoying, but let’s not forget that
the Duffster was watching it for decades; he knew what was going on, and he
knew what he could get, and he wanted it, badly. Mix in some party work, and the “Senate”
becomes a taxpayer-funded propaganda instrument, even more expensive than the $75
million you already spent (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/that-75-million-in-ads-you-paid-for/article23824771/).
To what extent are Peter Mansbridge and Lisa
LaFlamme already sizing up their opportunities, solidifying their contacts,
making sure they’re at the head of the line?
You’d have to be mentally absent to think that Mansbridge and LaFlamme
are not going to be your handsomely-paid and expensed senatorial representatives just a few years from
now.
But no, that’s not how it works. Mike Duffy was there, all the time, and
though he may have been more craven than most, he admired and was utterly
smitten by the lawlessness of the entire Senate, the easy access to taxpayer
money, the unashamed and mock-serious gloating of the party hack
appointees. He watched it for decades,
and he wanted a part of that moral- and tax- and cost-free zone. Who wouldn’t?
It says much, much indeed that Liberal and Conservative supporters have
cherished, for partisan and publicly extortionate reasons, a body that, from
its origins, was intended to preserve privilege, as opposed to initiative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_senate).
Good ol’ Bertie Brown, the great
Conservative farmer-senate-reformer Senator, was able to ring up over $330 000
in expenses in just one year (http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadas-only-elected-senator-also-the-most-expensive).
I’ve never met Bert Brown, but I know
kinfolk like his, and all of them would be ashamed and disgusted to know that
they had ever known such an individual as him.
His family will for generations be remembered as the one that used
Canadian taxpayers for massive personal emolument while pretending to be on
their sides.
The occasional jurisdiction has eliminated senatorial
entitlement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_abolished_upper_houses),
and not necessarily for altruistic reasons.
Nancy Ruth, who objected to cold cheese and crumbled
crackers on airplanes, raised a valid point when she said that “flying around
the world” (in her case, for basic Senate purposes, Toronto to Ottawa), was
something that others “just didn’t understand” (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/04/01/liberal-nancy-ruth-says-auditors-dont-understand-what-being-senator-is-like.html).
When you’re accustomed to such
entitlement, you just go with the flow and take it as it comes, and it does
become very easy to blend the private with the professional. Yet it *can*, pace entitled Nancy Ruth, be
hard to differentiate between legitimate personal expenses and professional
ones. They *can* blend. And sometimes,
there *are* grey areas. But, by
appointing only party hacks and promoters, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has
clearly upped the game—to be a Senator now, as Pamela Wallin and Duffy have
shown, is not really about not being very clear on the already rather fuzzy
rules; it’s about exploiting whatever fuzziness there is (Dean del Mastro,
anyone?) for partisan Conservative purposes to indebt Canadian taxpayers for
ideological reasons.
And there, really, is the rub. Mike Duffy, who knew what was going on for
decades, wanted a piece of the action.
Stephen Harper, operating in a personal moral-free zone with respect to
taxpayers, liked the cut of the Duffster’s jib, and wanted some of the Duffster’s
ample influence for his own: hence, the Senate.
Plus ca change, ou
est-ce qu’on peut change?
--zr
Friday, 27 March 2015
Germanwings 9525 = Al-Qaeda Triumphs Again
Germanwings 9525 = Al-Qaeda
Triumphs Again
Abstract: Fear and
paranoia enabled the conditions and killing of the passengers on Germanwings
9525; in honour of the victims of that flight, and for all future fliers,
sensible policies, that do not replace reasonable prudence with get-tough
politically-expedient reactions and expressions of fear, nor place sole power
in the hands of One person or agency, should be enacted.
Surely I’m far from the first (1000, 10 000?) people to make
this simple point, but fear and paranoia and obsession with “security” appear
to have led to another disaster and mass loss of human life. That the 9/11 attackers de facto created a policy that made much of the world place
collective fates in the hands of one extreme or potentially wingnut person no
doubt gratifies them immensely in their exquisite afterlives—surely such
terror, or infidel reduction, was key amongst their goals.
The tragedy occurred because one pilot was allowed to stay in the cockpit, and prevent entry from anyone else.
I’m struck by how former pilots and aviation talking heads
are expressing shock and amazement that pilots would do something so horrible,
when of course there are many examples of pilots embracing their godlike roles
and taking many lives other than their own into their hands not for professional
reasons, but for their own personal use and/or destruction (Ethiopian Airlines
702 and Egypt Air 990 are a couple of recent examples amongst numerous
instances). On CTV News, an “aviation
expert” named Phyl Durdey offered: “You know, who would think that, y’know, an
aircraft would be put into a descent by the co-pilot?” I can’t speak for Phyl, but I don’t care if
there’s 4 passengers or 400—I sure wouldn’t want to be on board an aircraft if
one of the pilots found out that, say, he was being canned, or his co-pilot was
sleeping with his wife, or something.
Phyl seems to attribute godlike non-humanity to pilots, and with
reference to the black box in the German pilot’s head, Phyl’s views are
terrifyingly ironic, indeed.
Or then there’s good ol’ Air Canada . One time, just after 9/11, I was coming home
from the U.S. ,
and it was one bizarre flight. The
flight crew brought our food, late at night, and then disappeared to sulk,
never to return. We all sat there with
our trays for an hour or so, and then began shifting them into bulkheads and
under seats and into the aisles and so on; the attendants weren’t coming back. This wasn’t prior to any kind of strike or
major job action or anything. I still
don’t know what was up. But what’s so
chilling to think of now was how the Air Canada pilot (was he alone?) came on
during that inky night at 35 000 feet or more and embarked on this long and
incomprehensible diatribe about things in general. He invoked Christ (Preston —“Presto”—‘no
government is good but if we just follow God it’ll be great!!’--Manning, seated
a few rows behind me, was perhaps comforted, but I sure as heck wasn’t). The pilot talked about holidays and work and
unfairness and so on, but I do remember he didn’t say anything explicit to
explain what was going on behind him, as the flight crew basically vanished and
refused to work. He definitely didn’t support
them or explain anything. He really only
referred to himself, not crew or passengers. But he talked religion and fumed
and rambled disconnectedly as though he were playing a video game or poking a
mobile device at the same time. I
suppose he was—I hope he was. To be
truthful, my most exact recollection of this flight was exchanging looks with
my flight partner, looking up and around in the darkened cabin (I still have
the beige mental images, to be sure), and just thinking to myself (praying?),
“Christ, I wish he’d just shut up, because the longer he keeps talking and
keeps working himself into this lather, the more dangerous it gets for all of
us and the more likely it will be for all of us that something catastrophic
could happen because of his distractedness and anger.” Only when he quit rambling, and nothing
radical ensued, did I start to breathe easier. Thank goodness I didn’t have a heart condition
and was flying, say, to see family for an almost last time—the Air Canada
pilot’s irresponsibility could have caused a death in and of itself. Was there anyone with him? Maybe there was and it finally caused him to
glance over and take a nod and settle down.
Or maybe there wasn’t and he took advantage of his godlike moments to
berate the world in general as we soared through the black night in his
hands. Something like the Germanwings
flight sure makes you recollect and ponder.
Well, as I say, the terrorists won again. A statesman once said, “we have nothing to
fear but fear itself.” By fearing fear
itself, and distrusting one another and enacting ludicrous policies that can
put One and only One person in charge, we opened the door for One to perversely
and inexplicably take the lives of others.
That’s right, 0 (until I stand corrected). But the world largely reacted with policies
that insisted that One godlike person should take control, and that does
reflect a lot of our yearnings, whether that One is a person in a uniform or a
generalized kind of overlord agency (or obviously a religious proxy/prophet). And obviously the exact wishes of the
terrorists.
I’ve never been fond of flying. I usually have to overcome physical and
physiological fears and work my way into a kind of philosophical-mental zone. You know how they say that, when you’re about
to die, your whole life flashes in front of your eyes? I thought that was just a phrase—a believable
phrase—but just a phrase. But I know
it’s true because I’ve had that dream on airplanes and on airplanes alone—first
pet, mother, etc. You never have dreams
like that on the ground.
--zr
The tragedy occurred because one pilot was allowed to stay in the cockpit, and prevent entry from anyone else.
(I’m a little uncomfortable that now, barely two--three days
after the crash, we’re being asked to trust officials who tell us it was an
intentional downing by a sole-acting young co-pilot. A little more time for the public revelation
of evidence and something emulating some sort of legal process would be more
reassuring.)
(And Phyl, dude, if you’re out there, flying somewhere, I
was initially with you. I really didn’t
buy that a pilot, wishing to commit suicide and mass murder, would do it so
slowly and deliberately. I would have
thought he’d just have done a nosedive.
So far, we have only what “officials” tell us—heavy breathing and no
contact—and for me that’s not total circumstantial incrimination enough—but
that does not take away from the fact that there have been numerous instances
of pilots taking themselves and their passengers down with them in recent
years. Dan Zorg has been acquainted with several pilots, and one very close
pilot acquaintance in particular has expressed greater mystification than this
post does.)
As with most people, this crash caused me to reflect on some
of my own flying experiences. I remember
being becalmed at the sleepy little Dusseldorf
airport for hours on a bright sunny morning.
I remember being young—not that young—and being on an Air New Zealand
flight. . .somehow, and surely not through anything anyone said with intention,
the flight crew must have learned that it was my birthday, and an elderly pilot
came right down to my seat and asked me if I’d like to see the flight
deck. Imagine (!). I’m pretty sure I can remember, not just
imagine, times when the flight deck was actually open during the flight and I
could glimpse it.
How in the world could a responsible company, or government,
allow a situation in which a pilot, who could experience a medical difficulty
(say, cabin depression?) be allowed to be in sole “control”? The news says that someone who tries the
correct password from outside the cabin can try again in five minutes if the
password doesn’t go through. Can a
correct password be forgotten? Is five minutes not enough to crash a
plane? Unbelievable.
This is what fear and paranoia have done to us: cause us to
place godlike powers in the hands of one person. In order to act tough against our fears, we
seek out fear and establish rules to protect ourselves from fears that,
ironically, can lead to our destruction.
In no sane jurisdiction would it be possible for one person to
completely shut out the world and take the lives of others—this is what the
9/11 pilots did, and their actions constitute the response much of the world
came up with in turn—a carbon copy of the 9/11 killers’ gambit. Yet in the Germanwings
case, of course, allegedly, unlike with that of the 9/11 pilots, there wasn’t
even any need for accomplices with box cutters; the only things required, like
Chinese or North Korean self-censorship, were abstract--generalized fear and
paranoid public representatives, infinite mistrust, and the infantile ability
to flick a switch shutting out the real world of/to other human beings.
Sure fine, I’m all for security; I have no wish to die on an
airplane. I’ll stand in line
forever—whatever. I just want public
representatives to be sensible. I’ll
stand in an airport forever and take off my shoes and belt and hat and have my
computer sprayed and my travel toothpaste taken away and go through a body
scanner and all that—sure fine; but I expect public representatives not to
endanger my life by putting in place measures that transfer godlike powers to
sole individuals who can never be held accountable for their actions. If the German pilot (is guilty, and if he
lived), I wouldn’t want to act like God myself and determine that he should be
killed; I’d want to keep him alive for his life so that he could be studied and
so that he could ponder his actions until fate took those powers away from
him. I think it’s fair to say that, if
most of Canada ’s
Conservative caucus had their choice, if the pilot had lived, they’d have
killed him with capital punishment. Only
problem is, they wouldn’t even have had that option because of their fear and
paranoia that enabled him in the first place—the Conservatives elected to place
sole power in the hands of one pilot (it might be said that many of them are
used to that, metaphorically if not literally, as with Presto). The Germanwings flight could have happened
over the Canadian Shield; the deaths of the Germanwings passengers could have
happened to anyone on a plane flown by a Canadian carrier—all because the
Harper government, cherishing its fear and paranoia about someone (other than God
or the pilot God) gaining access to the cockpit, chose to endanger passengers
on the flights of Canadian carriers by ensuring that there could be no God but the Pilot in the cockpit—not rational or
life-cherishing, capable crew--or even passengers--just the Pilot/God.
--
I was going to draw in other political and domestic issues
in this post, but when one writes about something like this, there’s no way to
end (because you’re talking about people whose lives have ended, unlike yours, so far), and there are always those who
will say “you’re exploiting a tragedy.”
Well, if I had brought in the
other issues or shaped a different message, it would have been a bit harder to
fling that charge. Or maybe easier. How many 9/11s (no, not hijackings) were
there before 9/11?
Long ago I had some fears allayed by reading the French
doctor and politician, Bernard Kouchner, saying that dying in a plane crash is
probably a great way to go. I’d never
thought of that, I must say. I haven’t looked up that comment, but basically
his attitude was that, hey, you’ve only got a few minutes left, and then it’s
all over. Contrasted with months or
years of pain through innumerable possible illnesses, involving not just me but
anyone associated with me, I’ve thought, yeah, the guy has a point. Flying over Greenland ,
I subsequently haven’t necessarily thought: “could we land on that spike if we
had to?,” but rather, “if we go on that spike, it’s done and done, full stop,
and a few minutes of terror may be a better way to go than the one the One has
in store for me (and in any case, I may die of something else first).”
But this Germanwings 9525 is different—it’s different
because our fear and paranoia-- pace
“Phyl Durdey”--allowed us to put in place a situation in which, if a remedy
were even possible, it was taken out of the hands of pilots, crew, passengers,
and ground control experts, and all given over to exploitative “get-tough”
politicians who dictated that there could only be One in a sealed God-only zone
at the front of an airplane. I have a
feeling that that feeling is a little bit like what the 9/11 “pilots” felt. Smug and in control, never having to answer to
other humans for their actions that would be hailed by a “divine” being in the
afterlife, ultimately blissfully unconcerned with a world that involved real
human beings while they themselves lived.
The emotions of the people on that flight—or Egypt 990 or
Swissair 111 or or or—are unimaginable and uncontactable—utterly unapproachable—but
some things are, even without divine approbation, certain: amidst all the chaos
and screaming and terror, surely people’s lives flashed before their eyes,
bringing up the most vivid and important and crucial mental images—a kind of
about-to-be-dead homage to the possibly still living. Surely people embraced one another in the
most basic human ways. In my most
tearful moments about this crash, I’d like to think that some of the German high
school exchange students were able to express for the first and last times
nascent desires or expressions thereof that might or would have sustained them
throughout their lives, had they had those lives to live.
I really think we owe it to the fear and terror that those
people experienced NOT to create policies based on fear and paranoia which
allow sole, godlike powers to be placed in just one person’s hands. It may be that “the Lord works in mysterious
ways,” but the generalized interests of “security” should not be allowed to
jeopardize the lives of individuals who may be subject to incomprehensible,
cruel, and sometimes, if humans are in charge, avoidable fates.
Tuesday, 24 March 2015
Patricia Arquette of CSI: Cyber—Fat Because of Soda?
Patricia Arquette of CSI: Cyber—Fat Because of Soda?
(Nothing important to read here, folks, so just move along,
move along. Only rambling, but felt like
jotting down something that was on my mind. . .people do such things on blogs.
. . .)
Standing in line at the grocery store staring at celeb
gossip magazines earlier today. Prince
William may be losing his hair, or something else, maybe. Already did write a post about Martin Short’s
craven advertising for life-shortening products. Watched a ‘sode of this new CSI show on the
computer, the second one I’ve seen.
I saw Patricia Arquette on The Daily Show a while back, promoting her new show. She was wearing some kind of 70s-puce-coloured
pyjama knit tight-fitting dress/pullover ($14 at Wal-Mart?) that emphasized her
every roll. Odd choice. Don’t get me wrong—I basically think people
should weigh virtually whatever they’re comfortable with. . .but of course
obviously there are points at which health factors must come into play. On CSI:
Cyber, Arquette seems always to be dressed in “slimming,” or de-outlining
black. (Strange, now that I think of it,
that the producers aren’t going with cleavage, for this is something all true female
CSIs always brandish on TV.)
Anyway anyway, I see in the two episodes of CSI: Cyber that I’ve seen that a feature
of Patricia Arquette’s character is that she’s always holding a tub of soda
when she’s walking around the quasi-lit monitor-festooned windowless enclaves
where real CSI people always work.
Heaven knows what she does on an airplane or just how giant are the
custom-made cupholders they had to put in the obnoxious more or less
unmanoevreable monster SUVs they always make CSIs drive. (Question: is it only sponsorship and vehicle placement, or is there any possible
reason that CSIs need 15 ft. of vehicle space behind them when driving to a scene where they only use flashlights
and rubber gloves? Maybe there’s lots of
bodies to stack up in the back, I guess, but I thought others took care of that
while CSIs caught bad guys or looked at those astonishingly instantaneously
informative computers rather than ferrying corpses.)
Now if Patricia Arquette is big or getting bigger, yes, yes,
I know it’s probably not because of her soda tubs on TV. Judging by their appearance and the way she
airily waves them around like tissues, the way the straws always stick way straight
up like toothpicks in an ice-cube tray, I guess they’re empty. Hm.
Maybe the show producers are trying to suggest that her size is because of her soda addiction. At any rate, it seems like the soda tub is
meant to be linked with her character throughout the serial—or maybe the
producers are already planning/have planned an episode in which she has a heart
attack or something and has to give up soda and it becomes a crisis in her
life. I’m doubting that a bit, though,
for we rarely see the personal sides of detective characters. Remember how “Horatio Cain (sp?)” always
found a way to show up at the funerals of victims whose crimes he’d solved
(maybe he’s still doing it); that man was working 24/7, and since he probably
slept in so many graveyards, he probably needed those sunglasses at dawn.
So Arquette’s overweight—no, there is no gender double
standard here. Overweight people of all
kinds have been all over TV forever; with the early radio and TV Dragnet, Frank was portly and interested
in food. More power to ‘em, just less
power to them to dictate their own mortality, is all. I said all this stuff in my Martin Short
post, anyway. ((Speaking only
personally, I think it is more attractive (and possibly more healthy, though I
wouldn’t know), to be a bit more overweight than underweight.))
Of course, back in the day, EVERYONE was always
smoking. Pretty well every radio serial
was sponsored by—not alcohol or cars or trucks or even oil companies so
much—but cigarettes. NOTHING was more
ubiquitous. But nowadays, cigarettes are
so frowned upon that you might see fake ones or unlit ones, or whatever. Now think about what kills Americans—heart
disease, diabetes, obesity, etc.—why would Hollywood
draw up a character such as Arquette who is always waving around a garish soda
tub? On a show where the writers sit
around all day trying to dream up the most sick and convoluted and improbable
murders, why would they write a lead character who chooses the most obvious
self murder? I mean, cigarettes were supposed to be cool, or something, or
evince adulthood, or satisfy sponsors or show brand affiliation, or offer a
prop way to emphasize dialogue or gestures, say. What can a giant soda tub do? How is it cool or a pivotal addition to
Arquette’s “range” of character traits? It
looks idiotic, like Yosemite Sam carrying around a BlackBerry. I thought
Hollywood millionaires ate well and health consciously, to the extent of pretty
much starving to death rural Peru
by driving up demand and prices for quinoa, for example. I don’t get it. I don’t get how Hollywood, which is prepared
to create and display endless violence, but will hair-split and mince around or
even come out guns blazing against the most minor social offenses, will develop
a leading character for a top franchise that shows her always attached to what
tends to kill thousands upon thousands of Americans every year. Do you buy that “role model” thing? I sure don’t.
I liked hockey as a kid, but it certainly never occurred to me when I
was playing that a guy on a pro team was some sort of “role model.” But we’re addicted to this idea of “role
models,” so let’s try it on: “Mommy mommy, I want to be a cool boss CSI
someday, like Patricia Arquette—she’s so cool. . .and she gets to drink Coke
all day!!!” Yes Virginia , you keep doing that and balloon to
200 and see how many job offers you get, no matter how brilliant you are at
delegating. I don’t know. Maybe it’s meant to “humanize” Arquette—make
us see that this steely boss nevertheless has food or drink obsessions most of
us can relate to.
Why couldn’t they always have shown Arquette drinking coffee
or tea? These are chemically very
complex beverages that, on the whole, science has suggested are largely
beneficial. Further, shows like CSI invest a great deal in creating an illusion of reality and seriousness—so
then why the h*** would a supposedly cerebral top CSI do something that was so
patently life-shortening and foolish?
How is she going to catch bad guys when she’s dead at 55? That’s a lot of bad guys she might otherwise
have caught as she approached retirement.
Yes ok, minds more brilliant and attentive than mine have no
doubt already worked out this soda addiction topcop thing on the internet. I’m just rambling, as I told you at the start
I was. Weird that ultra-sensitive Hollywood would write a
star for a major series who so evidently had a (relatively non-addictive—I
mean, soda isn’t heroin) life-shortening habit.
Well, that’s my piffle post for now. It just struck me so I wrote a few (ok
hundred) words, is all.
--zr
Friday, 6 February 2015
Just How Much Did Americans Pay for Super Bowl XLIX?
Just How Much Did Americans
Pay for Super Bowl XLIX?
(NFL Set to Not Consider .01
Cent Rule)
The truth is, Americans will
never know, because America
lacks an independent media. Americans
themselves will just go on wearing this millstone of debt around their necks
until they die and the next generations take over, paying the debt for Super
Bowls until kingdom come.
Watching the super bowl over
the phone with my folks when the halftime came on, I couldn’t help but think of
the American taxpayers who had to support this orgy of private wealth—the
fly-bys, the endlessly circulating public employees and no-fly zones and
massive military presence, the CIA and endless governmental and public,
publicly-paid for money that went in to making the NFL, no pauper itself,
richer than ever before. What truly was
the final account of the massive public expenditure that the American people
had to pay for having a super bowl? We
will never know, for America ,
like most undeveloped countries and some developed, lacks an impartial media
with access to information.
It’s true that most Americans
probably watched the super bowl on their TVs.
For those who didn’t, well, they had to pay their taxes, too, just like
people who don’t like letting seniors live in homes, but have to pay for it, do
too.
I had a look at an American
financial site and read an article by a person named Kelly Phillips Erb:
In her article, she gushes
over how much money was made by players and coaches and halftime entertainers,
and she meekly wonders if the host city and state themselves made any money,
faintly referring to carefully selected data and not actually referring to what
economists have shown for eons, that big sporting events don’t make money but
usually lose it for taxpayers. I’m
sorry, but if a big team comes to my city, it doesn’t mean that I will buy more
hamburgers or gas. If the Rolling Stones
experienced engine troubles and had to land on my roof, it wouldn’t mean I had
more money to pay for them. I have a
certain amount of money. Right-wing
economists don’t seem to understand this; they think imaginary money
miraculously materializes when an event is announced—somewhere, anywhere. Hoteliers
and restaurateurs might be able to gouge for a short period and make money, but
that does not translate to long-term economic activity. Curious that any corporate extension but
Forbes, getting paid to think so, would think otherwise. I, taxpayer, though, will have to pay for
more cops and setup and maintenance and teardown and cleanup and civic
services. I suppose there may be those
millions upon millions of tourists who magically descend once they’ve seen my
city on TV, but Kelly doesn’t reflect on that—show some imagination, Kelly!!
The main thing Kelly leaves
out, though, is the one she has to face in the mirror each morning as she puts
on her game face—gets the makeup on and the eyeblack so as to avoid the blaring
lights of day and reality and so on—just how much federal money went into this
and just how much average taxpayers—losers and poor people and coloured people
unlike her, had to pay in order to fund her article and fund the bowl, and just
how much everyday Americans would have to pay and pay and pay, until kingdom
come, to pay for the enjoyment her household relished.
Look, here’s the crux: most
people of most countries who have national celebrations of some sort would say,
ok, even if I don’t like it, I still pay taxes for it and it’s ok. OK.
But the NFL is a different breed.
This is a league that will pay former head-injured players $765 million
(.5% of annual revenue) to shut up and go away (http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2013/08/29/nfl-pays-765-million-to-settle-concussion-case-still-wins/).
This is a league that will pay its
commissioner $44 million to pretend he never saw video the rest of America did
(and, of course, as “Kelly Phillips Erb” knows but would lose her job if she
said, pay far less in tax than a McDonald’s employee). This is the league that will. . .domestic
abuse. . .homicide. . .concussions. . .child abuse. . .drug abuse. . .steroids.
. .you get my point.
When does the socializing of
debt and the privatizing of wealth stop?
Does America
have any media at all? What if the NFL
introduced a one cent rule, stipulating that one cent from every dollar made by
networks and sponsors and owners and players and coaches, and one matching cent
from every dollar American taxpayers had to pay for military and security
support, had to go to educating Americans and creating a playing field for the
majority of Americans who don’t vote and are disenfranchised by race or economic
status or gender or gerrymandering. What
if? What if the super bowl could become
not only a sporting contest, but a force for national growth and
improvement? What if?
--zr
Martin Short releases new biography: How I Ended Up so Desperate I Had to Shill for Companies that Will Help You Die Early or Bankrupt, Whichever Comes First
Martin Short releases new biography: How
I Ended Up so Desperate I Had to Shill for Companies that Will Help You Die
Early or Bankrupt, Whichever Comes First
I’m wondering now—was all that shilling just meant to get him out there as
advance-promo for his new book? How hard
up is this guy? How little work does he
have, or how little money does he have left?
How desperate do you have to be to shill for credit cards and potato
chips? Or, how many millions more does
he feel he really, really needs?
Saw Short on The Daily Show (Feb. 2, 2015). I remember Martin Short from SCTV days, and I, ah, must say that I really enjoyed his comedy. I surely thought he was very funny and maybe talented, too. He was a bit more one-note than most of his colleagues on the show, but there’s no doubting that he was one funny guy. I guess he was in movies, too, but I don’t think those are going down in comedy history, save one or two whose memory might be kept alive by ardent devotees of certain works (heck, I knew a guy who actually knew pretty much every line from Mother, Jugs & Speed, for crying out loud. That’s Mother, Jugs & Speed—if I hadn’t looked it up, I wouldn’t have realized it required an ampersand). I guess he’s been in plays and live shows, too, but I haven’t seen one. Oh, I’d go, if someone gave me a ticket. Or if I were in
But of course what I remember him for now is his recent shilling for
credit-card companies and potato-chip vendors.
So I’m just wondering if, anywhere in his new book, he explains why he
felt he was so hard-up and desperate that he had to do ads for immoral and
unhealthy products. . . ? Is such a topic
addressed? I must say, I probably won’t
be seeing his book anytime soon—but again, it’s not like I’d avoid it. He has done great comedic work. If the choice in a dentist’s office were People, Us, or his book, I’d pick it up.
If I were staring absently at a library trolley while I waited for
someone and the choice were Clive Cussler, Harold Robbins, or his book, I’d
pick it up. Knowing that he wants to
get me hooked on debt or fat, and that he’s raking in money from doing it,
certainly discourages me from actually actively looking for his book.
Ok, so that was it, the point of
my post—does anyone know why Martin Short was so desperate for cash or
attention that he agreed to shill for companies that contribute to the misery
and death of millions of North Americans?
I mean, it kind of is a real question, one that could be thought about from various angles, or, yes, just dismissed
as frivolous, which it may, but not exclusively, be.
And now, as this post peters out, I will offer a few more words--but
obviously they could never be enough—in pre-emptive defense against those who
might muster ire enough to tell me I’m a jerk for telling Martin Short what to
do.
I guess if I’m Martin Short, which I’m not, getting out there is what keeps
me alive. Doing some shtick, being in
front of the cameras, that’s oxygen; no cameras=death. I get it.
All celebrities pitch products.
Hey, if I were Martin Short, which I’m not, and Ford or Toyota came to
me and gave me a spanking new vehicle with all the bangles (that I could keep
or give away to someone, and whose options I could not find at a dealership),
and drove me around and showed me all the neat new things it had, yeah, sure,
I’d probably find myself thinking up some grateful shtick for it and raking in
the royalties. Money, even when you
don’t need it, must be nice to acquire, and since the vehicle is free, it’s not
like you’d end up with ruinous financing terms that sink so many working people
and families. Critics, and studio
backers, don’t critique ads nearly like they critique turkey-flop movies—bad
ads actually can be good for your career; bad movies, maybe not so much. Maybe Marty wants to become the next Shatner,
who has become a kind of advertising meme unto himself—with Shatner, both the
product and the pitchman kind of become irrelevant, but that Shatner, the meme,
is situated alongside the logo, in itself gives a kind of credence to the
effability of the logo, or, product.
Many might say, hey, nobody put a gun to your head telling you to get a
credit card or buy a bag of potato chips.
But that’s just being simplistic and idiotic. Ever tried to rent a car or make a major
purchase or do just about anything without a credit card? Come on.
Credit cards used to be pitched as “convenient”—i.e., when you had no
cash, you could use credit. But in the
debit era, credit card companies had to insinuate new ways into your lives,
including not protecting you against hacking, etc. Of course I’ve had and have credit
cards. They don’t improve my life;
they’re a necessary evil and sometime nuisance I had no choice but to get in
order to do other basic human life things I had no trouble doing before I had
to get a credit card in order to be allowed to do them.
Have a look at the one that Marty pitches:
http://www.capitalone.ca/credit-cards/aspire-travel-world/
Only $120/year to own, and a tiny prime + 16.8% to carry around. No worries if you’re Marty Short—but, if you're not Marty Short, a
lifetime of misery if you make one slip-up, one bad decision, your card gets
hijacked, you experience an injury or a job loss or a. . .thing that might happen
in life to which CapitalOne is immune (too big to fail) but you are not. And this
is what Marty is desperate to pitch.
Or potato chips, and Marty’s proud new Pepsi partnership:
http://pepsico.ca/en/PressRelease/Martin-Short-partners-with-the-Lays-brand-and-invites-Canadians-to-create-the-br02042013.html
Now, do I like pop? I guess I
do. Do I like potato chips? Of course I do. That’s why I don’t buy them. I have a colleague who may be dead before 50
because she can’t stay away from them.
Do I have no bad habits? Of
course not. Do I have good habits? You bet I do.
Everyone has good and bad
habits and everyone is more or less
passionate about different ones. Given
the choice, I’d probably rather be locked in a room with someone who had only
bad habits as opposed to only good ones.
But that still does not explain why a mammothly wealthy person such as
Martin Short (just to get a little shtick and face time and enrich himself
superfluously) has to advertise for companies who have documented, long-term,
and virtually undeniable deleterious effects on a sizeable minority, if not a
majority, of the people who fall under their sway.
It’s a wonder to me.
-zr
Friday, 9 January 2015
Stephen Harper Declares War
Stephen Harper Declares that War Has Been Declared on Canada
You can just tell how upset he was by his hands in his
pockets, his open-button, gut-over verbal stumbling, his casual waves, his
downbeat reference to France, his dropped-down voice when it refers to
specifics of Canada’s response to events in the Middle East and/or countries he
can’t quite bring to mind.
He says that the attack in France represented an attack on
something Canadians “cherish”—but meanwhile he won’t answer questions
himself. Many media outlets in Canada
agreed to pull his comments—
The Government of Canada even agreed to shut its own self
down, after Harper dictates:
http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2015/01/08/livestream-watch-pm-harper-deliver-remarks-live-delta-british-columbia-thursday
Media--and government--sources shut down at Harper's request--Putin only dreams of such subservience. And CSIS on the job 24/7 to make sure it's maintained.
Media--and government--sources shut down at Harper's request--Putin only dreams of such subservience. And CSIS on the job 24/7 to make sure it's maintained.
Here is a cut up and edited version of what electors elected
(for as long as it lasts):
Make no mistake—Harper unbuttoned was still Harper
calculating. His words to the base were
transparent—we’re at war, here, so you’ve got to support me. No-one disses a war PM (the longer I’m Prime
Minister).
But even the Delta kids behind him looked quizzical as he
assured them of the threat—that it wasn’t going to go away, that it was here to
stay. As for that--
--Freedom of the press: Harper’s cutting of the CBC, a national broadcaster that most developed
Commonwealth countries cherish for relative impartiality—and trust; Harper’s
attempts to enfranchise far-right media and refusal to speak with anything but
media that support his agenda.
--“We will not be intimidated by jihadist terrorists.” Harper used to accuse others of cutting and
running, but eventually, as this blog observed, when he realized he’d sent
dozens of Canadians to their deaths, he backed up and realized the war wasn’t
winnable. I’m sure that his “thoughts
and prayers” are with the families of his comfy sweater-vest actions. Do a Prime Minister’s wife and kids have
access to a Prime Minister’s tweeted “thoughts and prayers”? (I guess not; only Prime Ministers have
deepest condolences and thoughts and prayers; silly me.)
When you observe his speech, you see that Harper is actually
most comfortable amongst schoolchildren, whom he thinks he can sway or preach
to. Most kids aren’t that dumb. Justin Trudeau probably learned that long
ago, when he had a real job, unlike Harper.
You see the kids standing behind Harper, as props, stone-faced, while
Harper thinks he’s regaling them. In
fact, they are probably thinking, “look, I don't have to hate my friend, this is a fairly tolerant country, and
I don’t buy your “incessant war” theory. What’s your problem?” It’s clearly old-man s**t to them.
But Harper’s louche enthusiasm for endless war isn’t that
hard to explain, even if one discounts his fundamentalist Christian beliefs. He points out emphatically that the war will
never end (and as long as he’s Prime Minister, and can lyingly stop and start elections
with his septuagenarian pal Davey Johnston’s addled approval and he’ll keep
pretending he’s at war—not actually sending any troops or doing anything
definitive, but boldly supporting Israel, and so on). More guns, too, if possible; if the ones that
slaughtered people in Calgary (http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/01/02/killarney-shooting-victim-abdullahi-ahmed-previously-convicted-on-drugs-assault)
and Edmonton (http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/12/30/strathcona-county-mounties-probing-suspicious-death-on-edmonton-outskirts)
stir up the base and keep our streets unsafe for unConservatives. He already pulled a little insider action (Duffy, Wallin, anyone?) to get one
Conservative candidate police chief, Rick Hanson, to get on board with wild murders that support their own careers
with rich entitlements: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-hand-pick-police-to-serve-on-federal-gun-panel/article9648887/. It's not really about income-splitting, people; it's about splitting the people who are allowed to have guns and kill people, from those who aren't allowed to have guns and people. This much the PM understands and mandates. And the more guns, for Hanson and Harper, the merrier. Of course, Hanson oversaw a "gun amnesty" by which the Calgary Police Service collected firearms and then resold them to collectors and gun shops--just Hanson's way of making sure that as many illegal and unregistered firearms could get into as many hands as possible--hopefully so as to create crime and mayhem that could further his career and that of his new boss, Jim ("T-Bird") Prentice.
To be fair, as the following article (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-police-officer-pleads-guilty-to-firearms-offence-1.853499) makes clear, key new gun collection practices were supposed to come into effect some years ago:
"Insp. Ken Marchant said that in the future, officers would not be sent out to collect guns for amnesty programs — participants would have to bring them to police."
"Participants." I like that. I'd like to show up at a police station in Calgary and say "HI!, I'm a participant!!"
(In other words, instead of being forced to give up guns for future resale and collectors auctions at cop gunpoint, gun owners would be allowed to bring them in, of their own free volition, to have them collected and redistibuted, for profit and/or private investment, by the Calgary Police Service under Chief Rick Hanson.) As for the practice of keeping cop gun resellers on pay but without actually working or doing any kind of job (unlike normal law-abiding citizens and taxpayers), but rather, just getting paid lavishly with huge pensions to do nothing--Chief Hanson declined to offer comment.
To be fair, as the following article (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-police-officer-pleads-guilty-to-firearms-offence-1.853499) makes clear, key new gun collection practices were supposed to come into effect some years ago:
"Insp. Ken Marchant said that in the future, officers would not be sent out to collect guns for amnesty programs — participants would have to bring them to police."
"Participants." I like that. I'd like to show up at a police station in Calgary and say "HI!, I'm a participant!!"
(In other words, instead of being forced to give up guns for future resale and collectors auctions at cop gunpoint, gun owners would be allowed to bring them in, of their own free volition, to have them collected and redistibuted, for profit and/or private investment, by the Calgary Police Service under Chief Rick Hanson.) As for the practice of keeping cop gun resellers on pay but without actually working or doing any kind of job (unlike normal law-abiding citizens and taxpayers), but rather, just getting paid lavishly with huge pensions to do nothing--Chief Hanson declined to offer comment.
By declaring that war has been declared (on Canada , which
it hasn’t been), Stephen Harper, a fundamentalist Christian, is trying to
foment hatred and war amongst Canadians.
He’s using his usual divide and conquer tactics, which politically and partisanly always look good after
whoever uses them is dead (Harp’s one of those “short-term” legacy guys). Harper has kids, and they're going to have to go on living, and they're going to have to go on believing that the world is really as simple as their father thought it was. Harper's kids will be sheltered from reality by their income-splitted wealth, but the kids of most Canadians will not be; those kids will have to figure out a way to get along with others. They will be the true Canadian patriots.
[And since we’re talking about it, and since I’ve used the
term “fundamentalist Christians,” it’s worth pointing out that Islam today is
only replicating in many ways what happened during the Crusades. In other words, it was Islam, not Christianity,
which accepted wayward souls or infidels, in days gone by. I surely don’t defend anything going on now,
and may have more words to type, but for Christians to regard as shocking what
Muslims are doing now is just silly. A
Christian in Yemen today
probably has a lot better hope than a Muslim in pre-early modern Europe . A little
perspective, please.]
But we shouldn’t look at it this way. No-one and no-state or even handful of twitterers has really declared war on
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)