The Latest "Cancer Faker" - Breanne McGuire

So.

Today we hear that yet another young woman has been found to have faked having cancer, receiving sympathy and financial support as she pretended to be going through treatment for her alleged disease.

My own father was diagnosed with cancer this past year, and after surgery and chemo and radiation treatment - watching him struggle with the results of this insidious disease, as you might expect my response to this woman's charade is disgust and revulsion.  Far from seeking sympathy, my father's dignity and pride insisted on avoiding expressions of sympathy.  He actively sought out being treated as if everything was fine.  He avoided discussions of his illness - not because he was in denial, but because he was keenly aware that life is potentially short, and time spent being sad is time wasted.  So we talk about hockey and camping and, well, living.

On the other hand - we see this this new "cancer faker".  She truly is a piece of human garbage that deserves to spend time in jail, and who deserves to be shunned by any decent members of society.

She wanted attention?  So give her none.  I would hope anyone who was a friend is no longer a friend.  I would hope that as she sits down at a table - any other right thinking people leave that table - and treat her as the rotting piece of humanity that she is.

She was charged last year - however, her conduct was not made public.  Why?  According to police:

Investigators stayed quiet about charging a Cambridge teacher with fraud out of concern for how the publicity might damage her.

“They didn’t want to do the media release for fear of her well-being,” said Insp. Greg Lamport of Waterloo Regional Police.

Really.

I'm sure this isn't any special treatment.  I'm sure they don't release the names of those accused of murder or sexual assault do they?  Of course they do.  And does anyone doubt that releasing the name of an accused child molester might impact on their "well-being"? 

But in this case - she gets special treatment.  Isn't that nice.  We wouldn't want to hurt her feelings or have her opened up to public ridicule and scorn - I mean, all she did was to demean the true suffering and struggles of millions of people who actually battle cancer.

Nice.

And here's just a curious thought.

She is the third person discovered to have engaged in this type of reprehensible charade in the past year.

The others?

Ashley Kirilow and Jessica Leeder.

And what do they have in common?  Well, they are all women.  And they are all from Ontario.

Coincidence?  Maybe.  Maybe not.

As I've said before, more and more our broader society is creating a culture of entitlement.  Nobody is supposed to struggle or do without everything that they want.

So - then - my theory is that expectation, that sense of "entitlement" is so strong that when people aren't getting what they want, whether it's enough money or enough attention or enought "love", well, they will lie and steal that money and that attention.

And who would be most likely to have those expectations?  Well, one imagines, it would be the people that society has been spending the most time building those expectations in.

People, to begin with, living in broadly "liberal" areas where the state has most clearly announced, "You should have everything you want."  In Canada - that would be Ontario.  Or maybe certain areas of the lower mainland in Vancouver. 

And which of THOSE people are most likely to have developed expectations of being "served" their desires.

Well.

Maybe women.

Reading the leading family law decisions, particularly from our Supreme Court in the last couple decades, the message sent out is clearly that:

a) Acquiring a marriage certificiate is not only equal to 7 or 8 years of University, paydowns of tens of thousands of student loans and struggling for years to establish a business or professional practice - in fact it is superior.  While the husband is expected to continue to go to work, day in and day out AFTER a separation - the Wife has no such expectation in order for her to be entitled to between 40 and 50 per cent of his income for an indeterminate time thereafter.  The theory is that her work (which is not required in any sense to be proven) in the home is an equal contribution to the effort and expense to acquire a practice or business.  However - as the husband is required to work for his money after the wife is no longer providing him any sort of service or assistance - the implied assumption is that her contribution was much greater - such that while he has to work for his share of the post-separatrion income - she has no such requirement.  There was, at one point, what was reffered to as a "trilogy" of Supreme Court of Canada decisions (Pelech, Caron, Richardson) which put great emphasis on the Wife's obligation to do her best to support herself - however, with the changes in the Court - those decisions were effectively gutted completely in a piece of legal alchemy where the Court basically held in Mogue that "we didn't say what you say we said". 

b) Lawyers, who wish to be paid to help the woman acquire  those "entitlements" for their clients are greedy and self-interested and should be doing that work for little or no compensation - at least according to our Supreme Court's Chief Justice;

c) If the Courts can't shame the lawyers into working for free, well, then - the state should pay the shot for the woman to acquire those "entitlements".

(P.S. for an example of the system at work - see my blog earlier this week: here.)

So.

Then.

Is it any suprise at all that when a woman in Ontario isn't having all of her needs met, she feels free to engage in the worst sort of fraud to get what she wants?

Maybe it's time for a greater dose of "you make your bed, you lie in it".

Maybe it's time to tone down the message that "You CAN always get what you want."

And a good start would be sending these sorts of people to jail - and when they get out - never, ever, giving them a hand again.  Looking for a job?  Sorry, we don't hire scumbags.

Oh.

And if you walk into a McDonalds or Tim Hortons and you happen to see Breanne McGuire, Ashley Kirilow or Jessica Leader behind the til - walk out.  And send a letter saying, "I don't provide business to people hiring scumbags."

To assist you in your effort to send the message - here are the current Ontario members of the scumbag club:

Breanne McGuire

Ashley Kirilow

Jessica Leeder

Alberta Tories Get a Thumbs Up from Toronto "Big City Liberal"

Well.  As the saying goes, "politics makes for strange bed fellows".

And today, we see the so-called bastion of conservatism, the PC Party of Alberta, getting an effective "thumps up" from Big City Liberal in Toronto, Ontario - commenting on the recent polls showing that the gains of the Wild Rose Alliance have been lost since the announcement of the leadership change.

My response?

Good news, for you BCL, because the Alberta Tories would be considered quite left of the B.C. Liberals.. and would be very comfortable sharing a bed with Dalton McGuinty.

Good news for "conservative" Albertans? Not so much.

The bottom line is that the Liberal Party of Alberta, who has toyed for years about changing their name - doesn't realize that it's already happened.

They didn't exactly change their name - but their members slowly, over time, became the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta.

It's a funny thing - because I voted for Turner, Chretien and Martin - so I'm no hard-core Tory -but after working with the PC party for years, I've become very uncomfortable with the idea of a government who pretends to be one thing and then does something completely different.

I guess, the bottom line, is the party lacks integrity.

Right now - the leading candidate is Gary Mar. A man who abused his position by handing out an untendered contract to a former aid who was never asked to produce any evidence that he actually did any work. He collected the money, but gave nothing back to show why.

And as a result, Gary was sort of shuffled off to a plum post in Washington, D.C., only to come back now like nothing ever happened.

It's pretty disconcerting, I think.

Though, unfortunately, not very surprising.  Oil prices are up, as is the price of real estate in Calgary - and the real truth is most voters in Alberta are happy to have an incompetent government as long as they are personally comfortable.   Personally, I think over the long-haul, Danielle Smith offers the best opportunity to actually change the face of government to the best interests of all Albertans.

Though, in speaking with him at some length, it wouldn't necessarily break my heart if Ted Morton won the leadership either.

Both Danielle and Ted see the downside of bloated bureaucracy and complacent MLA's who typically do little more than nod their head at their senior administrators more interested in expanding government power than allowing Albertans the freedom to succeed where other Provinces and countries fail under the yoke of an overly intrusive government.

My own concern is in Ted, we see one man in a sea of small "l" liberals - the Allison Redford types - whose only involvement in the PC Party is because their goals could never be met if they ran under the Liberal banner.

September 11, 2001 - 10 Years After

As we approach the tenth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks - I've been asked to contribute my thoughts and impressions of that event to Canada.com - and not being one to turn down an opportunity to share my thoughts and opinions, I sat down and set to page my own thoughts of how that event struck me, 10 years after...

September 11, 2001 was a beautiful day at Moyie Lake.

The sun was warm and the sky was blue with not so much as a ripple on the lake’s clear waters.  It was, in a word - a perfect day.

Moyie is a small mountain lake about half-way between Creston and Cranbrook, British Columbia - which is to say, it's a little ways from any major city - about a five hour drive southwest of Calgary.

So, then, on a Tuesday after the Labour Day weekend, the Lake was almost deserted.

Most of the day was spent walking the shores of the lake, going for a quick swim, and then sharing a few beers at the camp site.  My tent-mate was a former girlfriend – and while we were no longer dating – we  enjoyed each other’s company enough to feel comfortable sharing a few days at the Lake.  Getting away from the world for a few days.

That evening, we turned in after solving the problems of the world around a campfire.  A light sleeper, a few hours later,  I stepped outside the tent and was amazed by the clarity of the stars.  They were stunningly bright - and I climbed back in the tent and woke up Tammy telling her to come look.  Like silly children - we dragged the air mattress out of the tent and actually took it down to the beach - lying on our backs - staring up at the night sky - every so often catching a shooting star - simply gazing in silence at the wonder of the universe.

It was an amazing night. 

Next morning - the camp manager came by our site - and delivered some wood - and I still remember exactly what he said to me, "That was quite a day yesterday, wasn't it?"

I responded, "Yeah - it was a beautiful day, not many of those left."

He looked at me, sort of odd, and then said, "You really don't know what happened yesterday?  The terrorists flew planes into the twin towers - they're all gone."

And then, he left.

We assumed he was crazy or exaggerating.. but quickly tried to find a radio station in the truck.  And it was then that our mountain reverie was shattered.

We didn't say too much - we started to pack up, and then made our way back home - listening to the reports of the attacks on the World Trade Centres.  The emotional contrast from a mere 12 hours earlier was, well, stunning.   I was just numb.  After Tammy dropped me off at my house  I sat in bed  at four in the afternoon, and watched CNN, with image after image of the falling of the towers.

And I wondered about why?  And how?  And I think I had a feeling that I probably hadn't felt since I was 6 years old and learned there was no Santa.  I felt innocence lost.  Isn't that stupid?  I was a 39 year old lawyer practicing divorce law - I thought I was as cynical as anyone could be.  And yet - after that event, I realized that up until that point - I was still an innocent.  I truly didn’t understand that evil existed among us.  I thought everything in the world made sense.

And then it just didn't.

That's my story of September 11, 2001.  A story of shattered innocence of a jaded divorce lawyer – who sat in bed the next day, his eyes filled with tears as he watched 3,000 people die, over and over and over again. 

And then  time passed by.  And I learned to still find joy in my life, in my family, in my wife (Tammy is still a friend - but we don't go camping anymore).  I have learned to have faith that most people are good and decent if you give them a chance.  But I don't have illusions anymore.  There is a pure evil in this world - there are people who will do things that to normal human beings - that even to animals - would be unheard of.    But contrary to what they would like to believe – I don’t fear them – and, I think, the great majority of the world don’t either.  They haven’t struck “terror” into our hearts – just wisdom.

That we are better than them.  That they will never succeed – and, in fact, their own souls are the only things truly lost as a result of those acts.  They are cowards and little mice of men – who have tried to be bigger by taking the lives of people who are so much more than they are.

They have failed.  And they will always fail. Whether they are the great losers of history who momentarily motivated countrymen  to follow them, like Hitler or Stalin – or the little scuttling crab sort of losers like Osama Bin Laden – they will always be judged, in time, as losers.  Because to motivate lasting change, history has shown that a leader must deliver a vision of peace and freedom.

People may, momentarily, run away from a storm.  But they will seek and search out peace on a clear mountain lake under a sun-drenched sky.

Curious about the Selective Curiosity Regarding Right-Wing Terrorist

Only the most ignorant and psychotic can have any feelings other than outrage and disgust over the killings last week in Oslo.

No question.

And for those of us on the right side of politics, it behooves us to be wary of those who would seek to identify with some of our goals or concerns, and bastardize those into a psychotic justification to use violence against others in the effort to achieve those goals.

There is no more dangerous enemy than the enemy among us.

However.

That being said - I have some curiosity over the driving curiosity of the press and the liberal blogging world into the "influences" on this latest terrorist act. 

In particular, Big City Liberal has been obsessed of late with trying to identify the people the terrorist in Oslo claims as his influences.  Not to suggest, for a moment, that the examination of the cause of this violence isn't completely appropriate - but if you search his archives for things like Taliban and Al Qaeda, there is a curious lack of curiosity about what motivates Islamic terrorists - particularly as compared to his insatiable curiosity over the source of this most recent act.

So I was curious - and posted the following comment on his blog:

Just curious BCL.

You have an impressive drive to try and root out the influences which lead idiot to an act of psychotic violence.

To be sure - the need to protect innocents from the acts of any terrorist is a worthy effort - particularly when almost 80 people are murdered in support of a "cause".

And yet.

As I search your archives, I don't see anything close to that curiosity in wondering about the sort of people who influenced:

- the attacks on September 11,2001 killing 3000 people;

- the people who influenced the attacks in Mumbai in 2008 killing 164 and wounding 308

- the U.S. Embassy bombings in east Africa where over 200 people were murdered and over 4000 were wounded

- the Beslan school massacre in 2004 where over 380 people died, including 176 children;

- the 2007 Yazdi suicide bombings in Iraq where 796 people were killed and 1,562 people were wounded;

- the Cinema Rex fire attack in 1978 in Abadan, Iran, killing over 400 individuals;

- the 1998 Lockerbie bombings where 270 people were killed.

- and so on, and so on, and so on..

Should we be concerned over what brought about the Oslo killings?  You bet your ass..  but it seems to me we might.. and I'm just spit-balling here.. we MIGHT want to also consider that MAYBE.. just MAYBE we might want to wonder about what brought about the killings of the other few thousand people in the past few decades.

Progressive Politics: Creating Casey Anthony

Casey Anthony : The Poster-Child for Progressive Politics

Well.

Yesterday, I'm sitting in court waiting for my client's matter to be called up.

And as I sit there, a matter comes before the Judge where a woman is seeking to avoid paying court ordered child support for her two children living with their father.

And - as I look back in the gallery - I see her.  Looking all "cougar-chic" in her workout wear - I'd peg her in her early-30's.

So.

Anyway.

Here's the thing.

She has two children, and then leaves a marriage, leaving the children in the full-time care of their father.  Which is fine.  Maybe - as it becomes apparent - it's in their best interests. 

But the problem is, she doesn't want to provide reasonable support for her children and she wants relief from arrears of support that have accumulated.

Why?

Well - as the story is provided to the court - it becomes apparent that shortly after leaving her two children, paying relatively marginal support as it was, she entered into another relationship, had another baby, and then quickly left that child's father too - because of "serious domestic abuse".

And so, as the sad tale goes, she finds herself residing full-time in a women's shelter - and, according to her lawyer, "is not allowed to have a job" for the next 6 months as a condition of her living there.

So - she can't pay support you see, because she is on social assistance.

Really.

Lady - you brought two children into this world - and as it was, you weren't providing reasonably for their financial needs - and decided to get into an ill-conceived relationship with an apparently abusive boyfriend, and, to make everything a little bit better, you decided to have ANOTHER child that you can't afford to support.

Lovely.

THIS is what progressive politics breeds.  Literally.

Consider for a moment:

• She was in court with a free lawyer;
• After giving birth to two children - she not only was not out seeking to improve her ability to support them - she engaged in an ill-considered relationship with another idiot, and made yet another baby that she has no apparent ability to support.
• She is living on social assistance, and has brought another child in the world who is also being supported on social assistance.
• She's living in a residence subsidized by others.
• She's coming to court - using tax-payer funded facilities - judges, clerks, court room and all - seeking to utilize those facilities to help her avoid her financial responsibilities for her oldest two children.
• And - one assumes - she will be seeking yet further subsized legal assistance, and court services - and then government-paid-for Maintenance Enforcement to collect support from father #2.

What's wrong with this picture?

And who gets to pay for this?

Mostly average Canadians.  The people who DO hold down jobs, the people who DO support their own children, the people who DO NOT regularly go to Court and use up government resources to help them avoid the direct consequences of their own poorly-considered choices.

Pathetic.

And if the theories of Pavlov and Skinner have any validity at all - society is effectively conditioning us towards worse behavior. 

When people do the "right things" - IE) support themselves and their families - they receive no reward from our broader society - not even a little pat on the back or a thank-you.

When people do the "wrong things" - IE) refuse to support themselves and their families - they receive untold benefits from the broader society.

It almost seems like a sucker-play to  to the "right thing" - except for this pesky thing called "integrity" and "self-respect".  Of course - in the drive to make sure that there are no "losers" in the rat-race called life - progressives are doing their best to assure that we water-down the impact of these factors as well.

Lest we look down at middle-aged cougars messing up their lives at OUR expense.

People like, oh, say, Casey Anthony.

I mean - she's someone's child.  Have some compassion.

This Conservative's View: Jack Layton - A Worthy Example for All of Us

As we have all now seen too clearly this week, Jack Layton is fighting right now for his life.

And when we see someone who has worked so hard, in his way, to make Canada a better place go through that fight, partisan interests must take a back seat to our humanity and our appreciation that in Jack Layton we see an example of what's right in democracy.

I alluded yesterday to the fundamental cowardice of terrorists, who, frustrated that their ideas are not broadly accepted, and frustrated that their view of necessary change is not coming to fruition, resort to indiscriminate violence to press their views.

Then there are people like Jack Layton.

He has his own vision of change.  And he has passionately pressed that view peacefully using the cumbersome and frustrating tool of "democracy" to seek that change.

And it hasn't happened - and likely never will.

But rather than diminish his efforts, the reality that the NDP will likely never be able to form a government in Canada makes his efforts all the more noteworthy.

Because rather than succumb to the frustration, to be sure, of watching Canada and much of the world move towards more conservative ideals - he pushes on.  Even as his own health falters, he pushes on.

He doesn't encourage riots and violence against the bastions of capitalism, during meetings of the G20.

He continues to press for acceptance of his views through democratic means - which is as it should be in a free and democratic system. 

The example of grace under pressure right now on the part of Jack Layton is so starkly contrasted with the childish and cowardly efforts of a recent terrorist who will no longer be named on this blog, because unlike Jack Layton, he doesn't deserve more attention.

Do I agree  the political goals of Jack Layton and the NDP?  Not on your life.

Do I respect the manner in which they persevere against all odds to press their views in a peaceful and democratic manner.  You bet your ass.

And for that, I commend Jack Layton, and extend my prayers, and I suspect, the prayers of all Canadians join me in wishing him success in his current battle - a battle I have just this past year watched my own father engage in..  and just as I admire my father for his quiet strength in the face of such a fight, so to do I extend my admiration for Jack Layton.

Best wishes, Jack.

Hat's Off to the "Average Guy"

Well.

My posts today regarding Amy Winehouse have set off a bit of a stir - the suggestion being that I'm, well, insensitive in commenting on her passing.

Maybe so. Maybe so.

And, as articulate that I pretend to be sometimes, I have been outdone today by another blogger, Reid, who, in turn, was relying upon the wisdom of Al Bundy of all people - and I think it perhaps captured better than I did my own feelings respecting Amy Winehouse's passing.

It's not so much Amy the person (obviously, as I never met her) it's the idea of how we lionize people who may not warrant such admiration, and ignore others who are much more deserving.

So.

In response to why I find the whole media response to Amy Winehouse's death so irritating, I quote Reid, who, in turn, quotes Al Bundy:

"So you think I'm a loser? Just because I have a stinking job that I hate, a family that doesn't respect me, a whole city that curses the day I was born? Well, that may mean loser to you, but let me tell you something. Every morning when I wake up, I know it's not going to get any better until I go back to sleep again. So I get up, have my watered-down Tang and still-frozen Pop Tart, get in my car with no upholstery, no gas, and six more payments to fight traffic just for the privilege of putting cheap shoes on the cloven hooves of people like you. I'll never play football like I thought I would. I'll never know the touch of a beautiful woman. And I'll never again know the joy of driving without a bag on my head. But I'm not a loser. 'Cause, despite it all, me and every other guy who'll never be what he wanted to be are still out there being what we don't want to be forty hours a week for life. And the fact that I haven't put a gun in my mouth, you pudding of a woman, makes me a winner."

It's not, perhaps, so much that we celebrate the life of Amy Winehouse - it's that we refuse to celebrate the life of the Al Bundy's of this world.

It's the failure, as my masthead says, to "consider the paradox of a nation that has given so much to those who preach the glories of rugged individualism from the security of countless corporate sinecures, and so little to that diminishing band of yesterday's refugees who still practice it, day by day, in a tough, rootless and sometimes witless style that most of us have long since been weaned away from."

So.

Then.

Raise a toast to the dumb bastards who struggle too hard for too little for too long - and still at the end of every hard earned day, find some reason to believe.

Expanded Thoughts on Amy Winehouse - Thanks to Jim

Amy Winehouse is gone.. how WILL we survive?

Well.

The readers have spoken.

Apparently, the more significant posting today was not related to a right-wing extremist who killed 93 people in Norway, it was the passing of Amy Winehouse.

Which isn't surprising, I suppose.

It seems that my short and dismissive commentary on Winehouse's passing struck a raw nerve with "jim", who responded thusly:

jim said...


asshole,u make consevatives look
like assholes
fuck off

I responded somewhat critically to both his sentiments and his lack of effort in expanding on his point, and a few other readers also suggested that jim was a little bit off base.

So - I thought I might, perhaps, expand upon my thoughts regarding the demise of poor Amy Winehouse.

To add to the "piling on" of poor jim, who, clearly is in mourning today..


jim (he has an aversion, apparently, to capitalization);

We diminish the accomplishments of people who truly succeed in life when we reward, even posthumously, the example of excess and stupidity.

While people in this world struggle against formidable odds just to have enough food to eat or to over-come other great obstacles not of their own making, in Amy Winehouse, we see, yet again, an entertainer who was given everything she needed in life, and yet, was still by all accounts a mess of a human being.

She attended private schools to facilitate her talent, she enjoyed early commercial success, and, one assumes, financial success.. and yet, poor Amy, she was depressed and consumed with self-destructive behavior, which included massive abuse of narcotics.

In the passing of Amy Winehouse, we see the media, yet again, giving excessive attention to people who are essentially court jesters.. who liven up our otherwise dull lives - but whom we elevate to god-like status, such that our children, instead of dreaming of being doctors, firemen, farmers and other people who actually deliver productive services to society - instead, seek to emulate O.J. Simpson, Mike Tyson, and Heath Ledger..

Is that really what we should celebrate and revere?

Don't get me wrong - I love music, and my own collection varies from The Beatles, Frank Sinatra, Hank Williams (Jr. and Sr.) to Led Zeppelin, Alice in Chains, Lady Gaga, Nicky Minaj, Eminem and Tupac.

I have great respect for true talent.

However, I'm not impressed with Amy Winehouse from a "talent" point of view - though perhaps that's a matter of personal taste.

Beyond that, and more importantly, I don't think the example of a life based in excess and self-destruction should be celebrated. It should be derided and ridiculed.

We see people with nothing giving up their lives for liberty in Egypt and Libya.  We see men and women in our armed forces giving up their lives for OTHER people's liberty.

And yet - pages and pages of commentary on the tragedy of the passing of Amy Winehouse.

The message, as I've said before, is if you waste a life by being an idiot, you should be remembered as in idiot.
 
No more, no less.
 
She was an idiot.
 
Her life, in my opinion, serves as little more than an example of how NOT to live - and nothing more.

Norway Killer Anders Behring Breivik: Bin Laden Disciple

Anders Behring Breivik - The Reaaally White Bin Laden

Well.

I appears Anders Behring Breivik was unhappy with the pace of Islamic immigration into Norway.

So, brave man that he is, he detonates a car bomb amidst scores of innocent people, killing 8 in the centre of Oslo, Norway.

And then, just to make his point that he truly is a coward in the worst sense of the word, he disguises himself as a police officer and walks into a Youth Camp and opens fire, killing 85 unarmed children and adolescents attending a youth camp.

Of course, when adults showed up with weapons, Anders quickly surrendered.

Impressive.

Truly impressive.

Look..  I have my own concerns about the tendency for the western world to bend all over backwards not to appear "politically incorrect" by doing more to demand acceptance of broad concepts of equality, freedom and tolerance from some of our newer Islamic immigrants.

Because your former culture accepted "honor killings" doesn't require us to accommodate that in our culture.

But here's the thing of it.  If your ideas, if your views, have any "truth" to them, over time, you will be able to secure fellow citizens to acknowledge and accept your point of view and seem to effect change through sheer numbers.  Even in places like Egypt and Libya - let alone Norway.

So.

The most ironic thing is that while Anders Breivik suggested in a rambling manifesto that he was acting out against Islamic influence in Europe, in fact, what he has shown is that he is a text-book disciple of Osama Bin Laden.

He is a man who does not have the ability to motivate sufficient interest in his archaic and simple-minded goals to effect change through political means.. so he chooses to try and force people to listen to him and pay attention through murdering innocent people.

And then, after you've killed scores of innocents, you cower.

They are, truly, men cut of the same cloth.

As are all terrorists.

Because while the word "terrorist" is thrown around with alacrity every time someone doesn't like what someone else has done - particularly if it involves the use of violence - in fact terrorism can simply be distilled to this one thought:

Democracy doesn't work for me.

Effecting change through peaceful means, over time, isn't acceptable.  Instead, I choose to kill unsuspecting people, usually innocent civilians, because ONLY through this sort of extreme act can I get anyone to pay attention to my moronic point of view.

It's a pity that they can't end Anders Behring Breivik like they did Bin Laden.

A quick, quiet death followed by an anonymous dumping into the sea.


**P.S. While the Courts in Norway have put a gag order on any disclosure of Court process to prevent Breivik from spreading his thoughts - it strikes me that just makes him more of a martyr.  Let him speak.  Disclose his ignorance to all to openly critique - the path to truth is not ignorance and silence.

Oh.

By the way.

This Breivik guy reminds me of someone else.. but I just can't put my finger on it..

Oh yeah.

Amy Winehouse Dead. Who cares? More Thinning of the Herd.

An, at best, modest talent - whose fame had more to do with her public displays of stupidity than any real artistic talent.

She over-dosed.

The press of course lionizes her all out of proportion to her importance.

As the saying goes, "Everyone Loves You When You're Dead".

I say, yet again, another thinning of the herd, making the herd stronger as yet another weak link passes on.

'nuff said.

Oh.

By the way.

Crime Rate at Lowest Levels in Almost 40 years.

Time to build more jails.

Just sayin'

Somalian Disaster? Go Ask the Warlords for Help

A Somalian During Happier Days

So.

Another humanitarian disaster in Somalia.

It is, truly, a human tragedy.  But, sadly, the idea that the Western world should get involved to help alleviate the suffering is simply untenable.

We should not be sending more aid, and definitely should not be sending any military to help bring order to their chaos.

You see..

There was another humanitarian crisis there not so long ago.

In 1991 there was a complete breakdown of order in Somalia, and civil war brought about wide-spread starvation.  Hundreds of thousands died.  The U.N. sought to send aid and assistance, and U.N. aid workers were attacked and killed.  The U.S. stepped in, and was largely successful in helping to get aid to the suffering, however, on June 24, 1993, 24 U.N. troops were ambushed and murdered, and in response - the United Nations sought to enlist the further aid of the U.S. military to hunt down and capture those responsible - referred to as Resolution 837.

There was no oil to be controlled in Somalia, no "strategic" importance - the U.S. was asked to help those suffering, to put their troops in the line of fire to save the lives of Somalis, and they responded to that request and sought to implement Resolution 837.

Troops engaged Somali militants and civilians - and in the ensuing days, a blackhawk helicopter was shot down, and in the effort to recover the survivors, a battle ensued, in which 18 soldiers were killed - their bodies being dragged through the streets by Somali civilians with what appears to be great joy.

Dragged by people including our happy little friend above.

Take a good look at this picture.

And then ask - should we try this again?
.
.
.

I say, screw that.

Somalia is a crap-hole of their own making.  These throngs of civilians parading a dead man whose biggest crime was going to the other side of the world to help the suffering do not deserve one single moment of my sympathy.  These are not people forced to engage in this atrocity, their faces betray the joy they have in bringing suffering to others.

Screw them, and screw their messed up cesspool of a country.

Oh.

By the way.

While you're thinking about the foregoing, have a quick look at these birth rate stats published by the United Nations.

The 14th highest birth rate in the world is Somalia.  Oh.. and the countries ahead of them?  Places like Sierra Leon, Angola and Afghanistan.

"We don't have enough food."

Uh.. maybe if there were a few less of you.

But, regardless, color me not caring.

Not sending one thin dime to Somalian aid.

Tell them to go ask Al Quaeda for help. 

Go see the warlords for a sandwich.  We're all done lending a hand thank-you - we've seen the depth of your appreciation.

Hikers Go Over Falls in Yosemite: More Thinning of the Herd

Well.

Stupid is, as stupid does, I guess.

Picture this.. Vernal Falls, at Yosemite National Park, California.

Beautiful, isn't it.

And a long way up, a very long way.

Now.

Picture this..  Safety barricades at the top of Vernal Falls.  The concept is that if you stay behind the barricades, you will, as the name implies, be "safe".

This, apparently, was a lesson lost on Hormiz David, 22; Ninos Yacoub, 27; and Ramina Badal, 21, three young adults who were killed when they were swept over the falls yesterday.

A witness to the incident, Jake Bibee, described the event in the Los Angeles times today:

..he saw a man in his 40s leaning out over the waterfall, holding his 6-year-old daughter.

"The little girl is crying and screaming," Bibee said. "There's a 13- or a 14-year-old taking their picture. And everyone at the top of the falls is pissed. I'm kind of a firey guy. I'm yelling at him ... 'Get over here!' "

The man walked back to safety, but three other members of his group had also crossed over a safety barricade.

"They're taking pictures and being stupid," Bibee said. Ramina Badal, 21, of Manteca fell first. Then a man plunged in after her. They were clinging to each other, Bibee said.
"I'm watching the two of them being swept away," Bibee said. "I'm starting to jet for the edge. It's just instinct."

His friend Amanda Lee pulled him back and told him not to go.

A third person also fell in. The man looked back just as he was being swept over the edge of the falls, Bibee said.

"I knew they were not going to make it," Bibee said. "They're going over the waterfall. When we saw the first two, then I grabbed Amanda and held her head down so she wouldn't see. And I didn't look either. I'd seen two people die. I didn't want to watch another."

Tragic.

But, then, I'm a glass half-full kinda guy.

I think it's a wonderful thing that the intelligent, and one assumes, positive addition to the human race, Jake Bibee, didn't lose his life trying to save these idiots - assisted by his equally sensible friend, Amanda Lee.

And, following up on that thought - is it not very apparent that the loss of these three people, while tragic, probably strengthened the human race just a little tiny bit by thinning the herd of the weak and the stupid.

From California you say?

Color me not very shocked.

Dalton McGuinty's Tantrum: Ontario - Give Him a Spanking and Send Him To Bed!

Widdle Dalton is a Gwumpy Boy

Well.

Poor Dalton McGuinty.

Today we read in the Globe and Mail that McGuinty is suggesting that Ontario has been subsidizing Alberta and the western Canada resource sector.

As quoted in the Globe and Mail today, McGuinty stated:

“For years, if not decades, governments in Ottawa of all political stripes have sought to find ways to transfer Ontario tax dollars into Western Canada to support the oil and gas industry.”

Run that by me again, Dalton.

Ontario tax dollars being transferred to western Canada resource sector?

For anyone who has lived in this Country for more than a week or two, this statement on it's face would strike one as ludicrous.

Alberta, in particular, has been using its resource-based economy to subsidize the rest of Canada, most recently, Quebec and Ontario to the tune of billions of dollars per year.

A nice "thank-you" would have sufficed.

Instead, what McGuinty delivers is addle-brained nonsense about how Ontario is being taken advantage of.

Well, Dalton, what say you about the advice of Tom Courchene, an economist at Queen’s University and a senior scholar at the Institute of Research on Public Policy, when he advised today that Ontario's consumption of equalization payments will threaten the very stability of the equalization program, and, in fact, Confederation.

As pointed out in the National Post article:

In just three years, Ontario has become the second-largest recipient of equalization payments in the country, with $2.2-billion set to flow into its “have-not” coffers this year.

Only Quebec, which takes in $7.8-billion in such payments, receives more.

Read that again.

Ontario collected $2.2 billion in equalization payments this year.

That isn't YOUR tax dollars Dalton, and it's not from Quebec.

It's from the western resource economies that you are now attacking.

An increase of 534% in equalization payments to Ontario over the last two years, and you have the gall to suggest your Province is being taken advantage of?

But let's examine this for what it really is.

At the core of McGuinty's angst, really, is the reality that Ontario and Quebec, for the first time in living memory, do not hold the strings of the Federal government all to themselves.

Pretty much since confederation, Ontario and Quebec supported Progressive Conservative or Liberal Governments who were beholden to Ontario and Quebec, and lavished support on those two provinces, the "favored children" of Confederation, with the other Provinces left to beg for the left over scraps like red-headed step children.

Now, thanks to a perfect storm of circumstance, Quebec decided to park it's votes with the powerless NDP Party, and, with Ontario being the only Province to elect more than a handful of Liberal MP's, suddenly, Ontario and Quebec do not hold all the cards in Parliament.

And Dalton, like a petulant, long-coddled and spoiled child, is unhappy about it.

He's being told that he can't have everything his way - and he's throwing a  tantrum.

Well.

Some advice to Dalton.

Perhaps, take a good look at why the auto industry has stood on the precipice of complete failure - bloated and fat union contracts that YOUR government backed through labor regulation tilted to support union power at the expense of industry viability.

Perhaps, before you complain over federal funding which is grossly generous to your province, you might ask, "Do we really need to start paying for daycare for everyone?"

Perhaps, before you start looking the gift horse, Alberta, in the mouth, you might wonder if wasting millions of dollars on your medical records scandal might have SOMETHING to do with current budget worries.

Perhaps you should wonder if, really, accepting holus-bolus, the claims of climate change alarmists, you might ask if the cost is TRULY worth the benefit to not only your country, but to your citizens as a whole - keeping in mind Dalton McGuinty's efforts to undermine Alberta by seeking to indoctrinate other Provinces in his misguided "liberal-think" in pushing to impose a national cap and trade program on Alberta's oil sands.

Oh.  And keeping with that theme - spending $7 BILLION dollars on a wind turbine program that far exceeds the per kilowatt cost of conventional generation facilities - spending billions in tax dollars on an untendered contract, with no certain benefit of any kind for his own citizens.

But blame western Canada.

Time for Ontario to put on it's big-boy pants and bounce this buffoon.

 

Moral Ambiguity of "Progressive Politics" on Display in Murdoch Hearings

Now, pay close attention.

When this person's operation hacks into your voicemail and email account, they are committing a crime.

Rupert Murdoch

BUT.

When this person's organization hacks into your email and voicemail accounts - he is a hero.

Julian Assange



So.

As I type this, I'm watching the Rupert Murdoch and his son James Murdoch getting grilled by the UK Parliament.

As they should.  The evidence which has been disclosed thus far, that Murdoch's UK paper, "News of the World" engaged in phone hacking to obtain stories, including the hacking of information from a 13 year old schoolgirl, is reproachful.

We should all be offended and efforts certainly should be made to assure that while a vibrant and aggressive press is necessary to keep our government and others honest - when they cross the line into criminal behavior, they should be held accountable.

But the story, really, is bigger than that.

It is no secret that Rupert Murdoch is the man behind Fox News - a notorious right-wing voice in the United States, and worse yet (from the point of view of liberal types) his Fox News station is much more than appealing to a "fringe" element, with it's ratings typically dwarfing so-called liberal or "typical" media outlets like CNN and MSNBC.

So, then.

When the big dog.. the big conservative dog, is found to be offside, it is with great glee that MSNBC, CNN, and closer to home, CBC attack the Murdoch name like a pack of attack dogs.

Fine and fair - though, one might suggest that more and more as this story progresses, many in the mainstream media are beginning to look like Nancy Grace screeching for the head of Casey Anthony.

My question.

Where were you when Julian Assange was found to be distributing private information and private communications through his "WikiLeaks" franchise?

Michael Moore, darling of the "progressive movement" not only hailed Assange as a hero, but actually put up his bail money, stating: 

WikiLeaks, God bless them, will save lives as a result of their actions. And any of you who join me in supporting them are committing a true act of patriotism. Period.

Nice.

So, hacking into private emails and exposing them, to the great embarrassment and angst of hundreds of people is ok, as long as it's hacking the "right" people?

Seems to me a little bit like saying it's only a crime when you sexually assault a nun, but not if you sexually assault a prostitute.

Isn't stealing private information wrong?  Period?

Or are we entering a world where we judge the wrong based upon who it is perpetrated against?

Alright - so hacking into the George W. Bush administration is "good", but hacking into the goings-on with the Obama administration is "bad"?

Or is it government employees can be hacked, but not the rest of us?

But wait!  Police departments are an arm of the government.  So then, the logic goes, hacking into or offering bribes to allow the public access to otherwise private information on police files should be perfectly acceptable - at least according to Michael Moore.  Only then can we make the police and, by extension, "government" accountable.

Alright, then, to follow Michael Moore's tortured reasoning, if we hack and expose private communications for "good reasons", we call the hackers heroes - but if we hack and expose private communications for "bad reasons", we call them criminals.

Fine.

Who gets to make that call?

Michael Moore?  Some star chamber of "right thinking" members of society who will decide whether the ends justify the means?

The thing is, we already have that.  They are called "judges" and they issue these things called "warrants", to assure some basis upon which to authorize "hacking", to provide some parameters to the "hacking" and to provide some accountability for the hackers if they venture too far afield.  Perfect? Hardly - but a little better than allowing some skinny albino freak to just do what he will, at will - or for that matter, some greasy so-called "journalist" from News of the World.

See - there is no justifying Julian Assange if you, at the same time, seek accountability and prosecution of those responsible for the hacking and other wrong-doing in the News of the World scandal.

Hacking private information is just wrong.

And whether someone hacks into a voice mail account or email account is really no different that what Julian Assange did when he gleefully accepts private communications and then publishes them. 

The technology, really, just clouds the issue.

Rupert Murdoch's people, allegedly, hacked into the voicemail account of a murdered 13 year old girl.

Would it be any less offensive if they paid a housekeeper to steal her diary and published from that?

So, then, at what point is someone going to demand that Julian Assange be produced for parliamentary or congressional hearings to discuss how he gets what he gets and who gives it to him?

Liberal Party of Canada: The Party of Fat Asian Crossdressers

Well.

Bob Rae is out on tour.  As he describes it, he is conducting "political therapy" for the Liberal Party, travelling the country listening to party members, trying to come to grips with why the Liberal party has been relegated to "third party status" for the first time since 1867.

Well, Bob, as a former Liberal Party member, now turned committed conservative, I can explain the problem to you quite easily.

You and your party have become the party of fat Asian cross dressers.

Well, not exactly.

That would be in insult to fat Asian cross dressers, making an assumption that every fat Asian cross dresser should, by definition, vote the same.

And therein lies the problem for the Liberal party.

You see, for all their talk about being the "progressive" party, in fact, their assumptions are racist, sexist, and discriminatory towards homosexuals.

You heard me.

They adopt stereotypes of what women want.

The adopt stereotypes of what homosexuals want.

They have become a party of narrow-minded zealots.  They have tried and failed to be the party of special interests, ignoring the reality that there are fiscally conservative gay Canadians who don't, particularly, buy into David Suzuki's brand of environmental hysteria.

They have blithely treated all women as being the same - again, ignoring the reality that there are many Canadian mothers who DON'T think it's a good idea for the state to encourage everyone to put their kids in daycare on the public dime.

Even as they bristle at what they describe as Stephen Harper's "arrogance" in suggesting that traditional Liberal politics of exclusion is dead, they ignore the reality of his new majority government.

As reported in the Vancouver Sun:

As Harper put it, boastfully but quite accurately: "Our 166 members of Parliament represent every province and two out of three territories. We have representation in urban, suburban, rural and remote ridings. We have more women in our Conservative caucus than ever before. We have the largest aboriginal caucus ever. And we have the most culturally diverse caucus in parliamentary history.

If the Liberals truly wish to survive to fight another day, they need to re-evaluate their own prejudices.

They need to acknowledge that women are people.  They need to acknowledge that visible minorities are people.  That the disabled, the aboriginals, the gays and lesbians, and, yes, the fat Asian cross dressers, are people.

Just people.

People who don't necessarily trust government to screw with their lives.

People who would rather pay less taxes, not more.

People who, by and large, want to be given the ability to assert their own best interests and stand up on their own two feet - who want hand-ups, not hand-outs.  People.

Like you and me.

Stephen Harper gets it, and Bob Rae doesn't.

But, then, it's always been difficult teaching a bigot to recognize his own intolerance.

Who said life was supposed to be Easy?

We keep hearing about polarization of politics these days.

Some blame the media.

Some blame politicians for fanning the fires of our differences. Looking south of the border we see Barack Obama storming out of budget discussions, frustrated with the refusal of the Republicans to agree to a permanent increase in the debt ceiling.. and Republicans frustrated with the Democrats refusal to remove tax increases from the discussion of how to bring down the deficit.

Are we just getting more unreasonable?

Are we just a hop, skip and a jump from Al Quaeda ourselves?

Why do you think there is this angst, this, anger over the refusal of the "other" guys to see things our way?

Well.

I'll give you a few of my thoughts.

Firstly, lets blame the media. They have learned, long ago, that subtlety doesn't sell. The general public lacks either the attention span, the intelligence, or perhaps, both - to spend the time to fully consider two sides of a problem - so better to serve them up one - and make it clear, black and white. No gray.

We don't want Walter Cronkite, we want Nancy Grace.

Secondly, lets blame politicians. They have learned, long ago, that subtlety doesn't sell. The general public lacks either the attention span, the intelligence, or perhaps both - to appreciate an elected representative who doesn't "rally the troops" by feeding them simplistic political rhetoric.

"More jails".

"More daycare".

"Global warming"

This blog itself, I have noticed, has a significantly spiked readership when I am particularly angry and, well, polarized in my view on an issue.

When I'm more subtle, well, readership drops.

I anticipate readership of this post will not be significant either.

Maybe that's good. Maybe my ramblings are at their best when they are read by the fewest. Maybe political discussion and debate shouldn't be dealt with by "selling" ideas like they are Coke or Pepsi.

The problems we deal with in this world are not simple. Pure capitalism or pure socialism, we have seen, doesn't work. For anyone.

We have seen how the theory of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a stupid concept. Most of us, except for the most simple minded, accept that Karl Marx was, indeed, an idiot. That the "socialist" ideal robs us of freedom, and worse, it robs us of risk. Which takes away drive and initiative and, well, the ability to struggle and dream.

But Marx isn't the only idiot paving the way for current world stupidity. Because pure capitalism doesn't work either. A pure free market creates nightmares akin to the Wall Street meltdown. Without some regulation of the workplace, the rich will be able to exploit the poor and, to the disadvantage of all, an impoverished middle-class will, quite obviously, stop buying cars and televisions and Ipods and so forth.

And Steve Jobs and Bill Gates and their ilk, will soon be not nearly so wealthy, and innovation will stagnate (as what is the incentive to create the next Iphone if you're only going to sell them to a thousand people instead of a billion?)

Now.

Before I'm done casting blame.

Let's blame the rest of us.

We are the ones who turn the channel from the rather boring, but enlightening discussions on public television, in favor of getting our political guidance from Bill O'Reilly, or Rachel Maddow.

We are the ones who consider people like Jon  Stewart and Bill Maher "great thinkers".
We are the ones who vote for "more jails" or "global warming initiatives" without ever pausing to actually examine the factual under-pinnings of what we're being sold.

So.

Those of you who have made it this far - thank-you.

Those of you who passed this post by, hopining for an attack on Bob Rae or Barack Obama, well, sorry that I didn't feed you your dailing dose of "easy".

No answers today.  Just some stuff to think about.

And as for the tomorrow?

I'm going golfing. If you want some political discussion with yours truly, you can find me at the Great Northern Bar in Whitefish, Montana.

I'll give you all my thoughts for the price of a shot of Jack Daniels..  of course by the time you find me, my "thoughts" might be even less coherent jibberish than today.

But that's life.

You pays your dime and takes the ride.  But no one says it will be easy.

Like the Little River Band: Reminiscing

Ok.

I'll admit it.  I'm old.  Well, almost old - I'll be 50 next year.  And as often happens with old conservatives, we tend to crap all over the youth as being privileged and spoiled and arrogant.

Which is true.

But, aside from that, it strikes me that while we may have created a "culture of entitlement" for much of our young people - their entitlements have been tempered with ever-encroaching limitations on their expectations.

Let me explain.

Yesterday, I was transported back to my miss-spent youth by James Curran - who while a staunch Liberal, is also somebody who, I think, "calls 'em as he sees 'em" and who's opinions and thoughts tend to lean towards the sensible as opposed to the strident.

Anyway.

Whether he was feeling the lazy inclinations brought about by the heat of summer, or has lost his immediate will to rail against the injustice of a majority Harper government, this last week he's had one post since July 7, which is no more, and no less than this:

Thursday, July 7, 2011



You're a Gypsy

 
Which got me thinking.
 
Firstly, about my lost youth, attending every April Wine concert in Lethbridge for about a decade.
 
Wearing Howick Star and le Cullotier jeans, platform shoes and clogs, long straight hair past my shoulders, week-ends preoccupied with finding the best and biggest parties, getting drunk and/or stoned to the beejesus, and, with a little luck, topping it off with the company of a young women lacking in judgment when it comes to choosing the quality of who she might join in the back seat of a Camaro.
 
And - as music sometimes does - it transported me to that time and place, and I was struck by - at least in retrospect, how little I worried about in that world and how much true freedom we really had.
 
There was no such thing as AIDS.
 
Even Herpes didn't strike public consciousness until the mid-80's.
 
The U.S. had just left Vietnam and there were no new wars on the horizon.
 
As far as lifestyle was concerned, jobs were plentiful, gas was cheap, the concept of our speech needing to be "politically correct" was a theme unknown to most of us.  The youth were no longer "rebelling" from their parents - but still were taking advantage of the hang-over of the early 70's, being an abiding belief in the freedom to do what you wanted as long as you didn't hurt someone else. 
 
Impaired driving while technically criminal, was, at most, "frowned upon" in proper society - a prohibition as often as not observed in the breach more often than it's observance.
 
Who knows - the mid to late 70's may have been the "high water" mark of freedom in the full sense of the word - reminding one of the thoughts of Hunter S. Thompson in "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" who pegged his Utopian period as the mid sixties: 

Strange memories on this nervous night in Las Vegas. Five years later? Six? It seems like a lifetime, or at least a Main Era—the kind of peak that never comes again. San Francisco in the middle sixties was a very special time and place to be a part of. Maybe it meant something. Maybe not, in the long run ...but no explanation, no mix of words or music or memories can touch that sense of knowing that you were there and alive in that corner of time and the world. Whatever it meant ...



History is hard to know, because of all the hired bullshit, but even without being sure of "history" it seems entirely reasonable to think that every now and then the energy of a whole generation comes to a head in a long fine flash, for reasons that nobody really understands at the time—and which never explain, in retrospect, what actually happened.

My central memory of that time seems to hang on one or five or maybe forty nights—or very early mornings—when I left the Fillmore half-crazy and, instead of going home, aimed the big 650 Lightning across the Bay Bridge at a hundred miles an hour wearing L. L. Bean shorts and a Butte sheepherder's jacket ...booming through the Treasure Island tunnel at the lights of Oakland and Berkeley and Richmond, not quite sure which turn-off to take when I got to the other end (always stalling at the toll-gate, too twisted to find neutral while I fumbled for change) ... but being absolutely certain that no matter which way I went I would come to a place where people were just as high and wild as I was: No doubt at all about that ...

There was madness in any direction, at any hour. If not across the Bay, then up the Golden Gate or down 101 to Los Altos or La Honda .... You could strike sparks anywhere. There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, that we were winning ....

And that, I think, was the handle—that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we didn’t need that. Our energy would simply prevail. There was no point in fighting—on our side or theirs. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave ....

So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark —that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.

I think he was wrong, personally.  I think the high-water mark didn't hit until about 1980 - though I did not visit San Francisco in the mid-60's (and being 3 or 4 years old, I was unlikely to appreciate it anyway), I happen to think that the turmoil of Kent State, the morning-after Vietnam was still too recent to allow the youth to really put on rose colored glasses that "everything is possible".
 
No - that time was 1975 to 1980.  I graduated High School with an expectation of infinite possibilities - fearless and headstrong charging blindly into adulthood.. which is the best way to charge out of adolescence, in my opinion. 
 
Now?  The war is over.  The greed-heads and the special interests are winning now..  our culture, our government, our future is controlled by people who don't really give a damn about the hopes and dreams of an 18 year old boy.  Unless he's gay.  Or somehow "deserving" of special attention.
 
Our children are told at the youngest of ages of their limitations, of the "rules" that surround them..  put on a helmet before you get on your big wheel, don't bring peanut butter sandwiches to school - you might kill someone.
 
Don't dare call somewhat "fat" or "retarded" or "fag", or you'll be sent packing, my friend - because while your parents grew up with "sticks and stones will break your bones, but words will never hurt you" - that's a time long gone my innocent one.  Words are terrible.  The kind of slow kid at the end of the block isn't  "retarded", or "handicapped" or "disabled", he's "differently-abled".  Of course when THAT term begins to identify those who can't do the same things that most people do, there will be a new term children will have to learn to create the impossible illusion that he doesn't have a disability.
 
Our youth - my children - have been poorly served by the progressive movement of society.  They have, in fact, had their freedom stolen from them in exchange for something that is a poor substitute - safety.  For a better explanation that I could possible give in a few paragraphs, I would encourage a reading of "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley to really get a flavor of where are youth are going to find themselves in the near future.
 
On the other hand, those of us who look back fondly at those days when real freedom existed, instead of being bitter and angry that they've now passed by, should consider ourselves blessed and fortunate that we at least got a piece of that time. 
 
And, perhaps, we should have a sliver of empathy for the youth of today who, while in some cases privileged and spoiled, are required to accept their "entitlements" at the cost of being required to exist in a world where freedom, real freedom - is an abstraction that they will never, ever, glimpse during their lifetime.
 
For those of us in our late 40's?
 

"We'll go dancing in the dark

Walking through the park and reminiscing."

Quebec: A Simple Tale, About a Simple Province.

Sometimes, the best morals arise from the simplest of stories.

So.

A Simple story, about a "simple" Province.

See:

CBC News

Montreal Gazette

Globe and Mail

U.S. Economy: Hope? Nope. Change? Not so much.

So.

Who is this "Barack Obama", really?

He's a former Illinois politician.  We know that.  And what do we know about politicians in Illinois?

Well, since 1961, half of their governors have ended up being convicted of some form of corruption:

-- Rod Blagojevich -- Governor from 2002 through 2009, when he became the first Illinois governor in history to be impeached. Convicted of numerous corruption charges Monday, including allegations that he tried to sell or trade President Barack Obama's old Senate seat. 

-- George Ryan -- Governor from 1999 through 2003. After leaving office, was convicted of racketeering for actions as governor and secretary of state. In November 2007, began serving 6 1/2 years in federal prison.

-- Dan Walker -- Governor from 1973-1977. Pleaded guilty to bank fraud and other charges in 1987 related to his business activities after leaving office. Spent just over a year and a half in federal prison.

-- Otto Kerner -- Governor from 1961-1968. Resigned to become judge, then was convicted of bribery related to his tenure as governor. Sentenced to three years in prison.

So.  Not to say Obama is corrupt.  Not to say that there aren't moral politicians coming from Illinois.  But it's a coin toss, really.  The chances of an Illinois politician being dirty, somehow, appear to be about 50/50.

And so now, when we see Operation Fast and Furious beginning to capture the attention of the press, Americans are asking "Why were we sending guns to Mexican drug dealers?" And, "How high did this go?"  And we're seeing denials from Barack Obama that sound eerily like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, denying complicity in Watergate and the Iran/Contra affair.

And, while the President and his Attorney General play cute with demands for explanations, the U.S. economy continues to suffer.

Joblessness still runs at 9%, the deficit is out of control, Congress is paralyzed.

And, really, as yet another failing U.S. President struggles with the muck and mire of that office - a trip to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue begins to resemble a trip to the heart of darkness.  Those who once, perhaps, saw Barack Obama as the second coming, are now wondering if he is beginning to sit, angry and brooding, like Colonel Kurtz, alone in his thoughts.

And reminiscent of Dennis Hopper's character in Apocalypse Now, as the Republican nomination process begins to take hold, the babbling liberal media tries to make sense of the senseless direction their country is going, and where their leader is leading.  Soon we will see the editorial page of the New York Times print something like this:

In Canada.. we have no such excitement.  We have the Canadian government experience.  Stephen Harper, Conservative, boring, no "Hope" or "Change We Can Believe In" T-Shirts. 

The somewhat quiet - some might even say dull - Stephen Harper stands at the bridge of our ship.

And our press, hardly enamoured with our Prime Minister, merely reports on our dull Canadian reality:

The Star

July 8, 2011

Canada created more jobs last month than U.S. did

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA—The Canadian economy created 28,000 jobs last month, helped by a gain the part-time jobs to post its third consecutive month of growth.

By comparison, U.S. employers added just 18,000 workers in June, the fewest number in nine months, as unemployment unexpected rose to 9.2 per cent and the tepid American labour market continued to threaten the economy recovery south of the border.

Hope and Change?  No thanks, we're doing just fine.

Out of town.. But this HAS to be making Al Gore crazy.

Is the "jig up" on Al Gore's fraud?

Publish this Rolling Stone!

Casey Anthony Trial: Winners? The Nancy Haters

`Your honor, I move for a bad court thingy..`

Lionel Hutz - Proud Graduate of the Nancy Grace School of Law

Well.

A few more thoughts on the Casey Anthony trial.

If there was a silver lining in this whole sordid affair, it had to be watching the utter shock and humiliation of pseudo-legal "expert" Nancy Grace and her harpie side-kick, Jane Velez Mitchell.

Of course, this is nothing new to Nancy.

She's been humiliated for her antics before, in fact, while she was a prosecuting attorney, in 1997, the Georgia Supreme Court overturned a murder-arson conviction of businessman W. W. Carr in the death of his wife. While the court said its reversal was not due to these transgressions, it nevertheless concluded "the conduct of the prosecuting attorney in this case demonstrated her disregard of the notions of due process and fairness, and was inexcusable," wrote then Chief Justice Robert Benham. (Carr v. State, 267 Ga. 701 (1997)). 

In a separate case, despite upholding the conviction she sought, a panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in a 2005 opinion that Grace "played fast and loose" with her ethical duties and failed to "fulfill her responsibilities" as a prosecutor in the 1990 triple murder trial of Herbert Connell Stephens.  The court agreed that it was "difficult to conclude that Grace did not knowingly use ... [apparently false] testimony" from a detective that there were no other suspects, despite the existence of outstanding arrest warrants for other men.

So, then.

How sweet was it, really, to see Nancy choking on her words, finally, ALMOST speechless at the verdict in the trial.

And then, to see her whine and moan about the Defence team celebrating the verdict..  HOW DARE THEY!

Look.

They lived and and breathed this trial for three years.

They endured endless days of Nancy pretending that she had even the slightest clue what was going on, giving her ``expert`` opinion of what was going on - always from the point of view of a tired, sad, and pathetic former prosecutor who often speaks as if she has never been to law school, let alone actually practiced law in an open court.

So then.

The Defence - I`m sure convinced of the innocence of their client just as Nancy was convinced of her guilt - found their client acquitted of all felony charges, give them their day.  Of course they celebrated.  Of course they popped corks off of champagne bottles - let`s be real.  They were jubilant and they should have been - they saved a women from being killed by the state.

Imagine that.

Imagine you believe your client is innocent (call them biased, or naive, or whatever), and that everyone is telling you every time you turn on the t.v., that she is going to be convicted and will be looking at the death penalty.

And then you win.

Your client is saved.

You don`t think you might do a "fist pump" or two?
Seriously?

Time, maybe for CNN and HLN to consider someone serious and competent to cover legal issues.

Nancy should, perhaps, go work for a victims rights organization or some such thing - because her antics have gone from annoying, to just sad and pathetic.

Nancy, you`re just no longer a law talking guy.

Get Out Your Shotguns - It's Open Season on Babies!!

"Be vewy, vewy quiet..   it's baby season!"

It's fiddler crab season.

It's elk season.

It's baseball season.

Nope.

Apparently, it's baby season. 

The logical outcome of a society where everyone ELSE is to blame for our actions has, it seems, made it open season to kill children with impunity.

Witness today:

Casey Anthony - acquitted on charges of murder and manslaughter of her two-year-old child after lied about the alleged nanny of the child and did not report her child missing for one month until basically pressed into it by her family.

Japanese exchange student Narumi Bito was acquitted today after being found with a dead baby behind a chair in her apartment, discovered only after her homestay host noticed the smell of the small decomposing corpse in the home.

Dr. Guy Turcotte was found not criminally responsible for the admitting killings of his two children, aged 5 and 3, after having a "psychotic break" after learning his wife was seeing another man.

Isn't that special.

You see.. Casey Anthony was just misunderstood.  Listen to her lawyer wax eloquently about how abused she was in the media - ignoring the reality that an acquittal is hardly an indication of innocence in the full sense of the word - just ask O.J. Simpson about the different burden in a criminal trial as compared to a civil trial.

Narumi Bito - was a 21 year old student attending the University of Victoria.  Read that again - a "university student" who apparently didn't know she was pregnant, didn't know she was giving birth, and didn't know how to seek help when her baby was born.  When asked why she let her child fall into the toilet, she gave evidence that she thought she was taking a crap. Then, after literally dropping it in a toilet - then passing out - she put the dead child in a plastic bag and secreted it behind a chair in her room.. then went about her life, chatting with friends, buying a new computer, and going to school. 

Dr. Turcott - well, he's maybe the most special of all, because, you see - he admitted to stabbing his two children to death.  But - you see - it wasn't his fault.  His wife had an affair.  So - obviously, the appropriate response was to brutally stab his two infants until they were dead.

Should we be shocked?  Not really.

You see, the "Brave New World" we've created for ourselves dictates that none of us should be held responsible for the consequences of our actions.  Heroin addicts not only shouldn't be arrested - but they should be supplied with heroin - or at least given clean needles and a safe place to commit their crimes.

Rioters who have disagreements with democracy and capitalism shouldn't be arrested - or even hampered in their efforts to attack foreign dignitaries attending economic conferences.  While police cars burn and business are looted, we are to examine why our capitalist system let them down.

And, as blogged about yesterday, when terrorists firebomb schools or Muslim parents murder their children for not abiding by their archaic social constructs - we should really blame society for not doing more to help them before they turn to violence - just ask Ehab Lotayef.

Of course - if you happen to use violence - not to kill your family, but to protect your home or your business - well, that will not be tolerated.

Welcome, indeed, to the progressive utopia, a bizzaro-world where killing your children is condoned and protecting yourself is not.