Change is slow. On top of that, the only people who completely embrace it are the ones who didn't like the status quo in the first place. I ought to keep that in mind, when I hear the latest right-wing garbage that attacks Barack Obama, liberals, gay rights, alleged terrorists, or any other conservative targets, but I'm only human. On top of that, I'm someone who was brought up to believe that people should be judged by their actions, rather than what colour their skin is, what church they go to, or who they're in love with. Plus, I place a very high value on not being called a traitor just because I don't like a particular leader. So change may be hard, but it is often necessary, especially when the status quo has failed as spectacularly as it has in the last few years.
Barack Obama recently marked the first 100 days of his presidency, and according to polls, most Americans are very happy with the job he's done so far. On top of that, America is gradually rebuilding its reputation as a diplomatic and innovative leader on the world stage, making amends with countries that previously wanted nothing to do with the U.S. But, if you lurk on political internet forums and blogs for about ten minutes, you'll find no shortage of people who are still utterly convinced that Obama is a Muslim terrorist, the Anti-Christ, a communist, or not even an American citizen. Honestly, this is so stupid and needless that the only good thing about it is its unpopularity.
Leaving aside that his birth in Hawaii is well documented -- at least to anyone actually interested in FACTS -- let's think about this for a minute: Obama was in the running for President for years, so doesn't it make sense that if there was any serious question about where he was born, it would have been caught long before he took office? As for the Muslim theory... leaving aside that Obama's Christian faith is also well documented, the Constitution does not disqualify non-Christians from becoming President. So in case it's not obvious, anyone using a mixed background to criticize Obama is just a bullshitting racist. Period. The Anti-Christ thing is just as stupid, especially since every world leader in recent memory has been compared to Satan at some time or another, and to my knowledge its accuracy rate has been exactly ZERO.
By the way, as long as the right wing is going out of its way to attack Obama as a so-called radical, I'd like to know what they think of the following people: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, and John F. Kennedy. Not to mention recent conservative radicals like George W. Bush and Sarah Palin, or the all-time conservative poster boy, Jesus -- though I mean the one actually written about in The Bible, not the one invented by the witch-burners and homophobes.
As for the communist thing, that only seems to be there at all because he's a socially progressive politician who wants to reign in extreme capitalism and not threaten to bomb every country in the world with brown people in it. Now look, I've gone on enough for one season about how America supposedly places a high value on social liberties, and anyone who can be bothered to read a non-American news source would see that Bush's Dr. Strangelove antics had made the U.S. into a sick joke on the world stage. As for trying to control capitalism... when the Great Depression hit, another sitting President did the same thing, to get the economy afloat again. His name Franklin Roosevelt, and it was called the New Deal -- guess what? It worked. The whole reason why the economy imploded in the last few years is because several other governments since then have decided to undo everything that FDR put in place. So going after Obama for trying to put it back, is kind of like someone getting a triple heart bypass, and then ordering the doctor to take it all out because he can't eat pork rinds anymore.
In other words, if the extreme right wants to shoot itself in the foot, it can be my guest. But it shouldn't take the rest of the world with it.
Another post-9/11 relic still lurking, is the controversy over Canadian terrorism suspect Omar Khadr. Last week, a Federal Court ordered Prime Minister Stephen Harper to bring Khadr back to Canada for a proper trial, on the grounds that he is not only being railroaded, but he is legally a child soldier and thus we are obligated by law to show some leniency towards him. Being the neo-con fearmongerer that he is, Harper is refusing to do this -- yet another sign that he doesn't give a horse's ass about Canadian law -- claiming, among other things, that Khadr was never a child soldier. Excuse me, Harpo, but the guy was 15 when he was captured -- how in the hell is he NOT a child soldier? And who the hell are you to disobey an order from a federal court, anyway? To those of us who've been keeping score, he thinks he can ignore the Canadian public, Parliament, our Constitution, the Governor General, the actual economy, and finally our Judicial system, whenever he doesn't hear them say, "Yes, Emperor Harper". When is this asshole going to get overthrown?
Finally, there's the kerfuffle caused by American Homeland Security, thanks to Secretary Janet Napolitano. She recently said in an interview on the CBC, that several 9/11 hijackers came to the U.S. from Canada. This has been a long-standing position of the right-wing, thanks to a former CIA director who refused to say what proof he had of that claim, and you know something? It's completely untrue. Sure enough, Napolitano took it back a few days later -- claiming that she misunderstood the question, of course -- but the damage had been done. So not only is the perception of Canada as a terrorism haven in the air again, but it's being supported by none other than former Presidential candidate John McCain.
Now, even if it were true, that the hijackers crossed over from Canada, it does beg the following question: either way, the last stop for the terrorists was the American mainland. The onus of stopping troublemakers at the border, lies with the country about to receive them -- so why did American security and immigration not stop these men from entering THEIR country?
What I'm about to close with, I basically said when I crowned Sarah Palin the Douchebag of 2008, but I'm going to re-use it, because apparently it's not sinking in. Look, you right-wing "freedom lovers" (please note my sarcasm), maybe you haven't noticed, but a lot of people don't like you right now. In fact, a lot of people think that conservatives are completely clueless and psychotic. With statements like what's been coming out of your camp lately, you're not exactly proving them wrong. So if you ever want to legimately get power again, the best thing you could do is dig your heads out of your asses, take a look at life outside of your caves, and get a grip on the real world. To be honest, you're looking more and more like Joe McCarthy all the time, and the only thing he's remembered for is being a paranoid idiot who ruined a lot of innocent lives and nearly tore a country apart. Enough said.
Showing posts with label omar khadr. Show all posts
Showing posts with label omar khadr. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
The Complaint Department
Definitely the best thing about having the video version of my rants on YouTube is that it's really easy for people to comment on the videos. Sometimes this is a generic compliment, sometimes it's a neat idea that I hadn't thought about before, and sometimes it's just vile moose crap. So, naturally, we're going to be wrapping this season up with some of that. But not all at once. Here's a look at some of the notes I received, in the last couple of months on "Bored on the Corner".
In "Psychotic Hatreds", where I first went on about my personal pet peeves, I mentioned that I strongly despise people who call themselves Christians, yet apparently go out of their way to not follow the Gospel at all. Specifically, I talked about the conceited and intolerant views that they often have -- getting on a soapbox and saying that their faith is the only right one, that The Bible is true just because it says it is God's Word, an oddly selfish and greedy lifestyle that Jesus Himself shunned, and so on.
Well, a fellow named "Chaos1286" said "I dont agree... You shouldnt talk about things you dont understand... by this im talking about christianity...you are certainly entitled to your opinion as an atheist."
Let me start this response very simply: Chaos, I never once said that I am an atheist. Pay attention. If you can't even get such a basic detail as THAT right, you already look like you're yanking my chain. Second, what exactly do I supposedly not understand? Everything that I stated about Christianity comes from actually reading verses from The Gospel, and observations I've made of some of the "truly devout". So if you can show me where Jesus said that being peaceful, modest, and humble is wrong, by all means do so. Good luck.
While it wasn't for the "Smell Test" rant, I did get a bit of flack elsewhere, for criticizing Israel during the Gaza invasion a while back. So first of all, let me make one thing clear: criticizing Israel is not being Anti-Semitic. Anyone who says otherwise is either an idiot or a bully. I'll explain it this way: criticizing Sudan isn't being Anti-Black, criticizing North Korea isn't being Anti-Asian, criticizing North America and Europe isn't being Anti-Christian, so what in the hell would criticing Israel be Anti-Semitic?
The second issue: I don't dispute that Israel has a right to exist and defend itself. However, no one has yet explained to me why it is acceptable for Israel to bulldoze and bomb homes in places that don't belong to it, blow up schools, hospitals, ambulances, and humanitarian missions, and kill three or four times as many women and children as they kill terrorists; yet, Hamas fires a few badly aimed rockets that have killed about a dozen people, and is considered a grave threat to civilization in the Middle East. Please.
The third issue: if you're going to argue with me on this, don't bother presenting anything that comes from the Israeli Defense Force, Israeli Government, Jewish Defence League, or any other blatantly Zionist group. Why? Because they're never going to be honest about what they're doing. I'm amazed to have actually needed to explain this to grown adults, but during a war, people always make this stuff called "propaganda". It consists of half-truths and bald-faced lies, designed to make the author's side look more heroic than it really is. This isn't that strange of a concept; whenever one of us is caught doing something wrong, what's the first thing we do? Make an excuse! Usually a variation of "He started it!"
While we're at it, I also got some comments on my Omar Khadr video from last year, protesting his being beaten and seemingly railroaded, on charges that he threw a grenade at a US Army medic in Afghanistan. I say "railroaded", because the evidence against him is flimsy at best. But, because his family is tied to Al Qaeda, a lot of people seem to think that Omar is already guilty, and basically deserves to be fed to the dogs. Well, the last time I checked, under International Law, Khadr is entitled to a fair trial, due process, presumed innocence until guilt is proven and to not be beaten or tortured by his captors. As soon as we throw that away, we're no better than the animals in the Taliban that we're supposedly wanting to stop.
Furthermore, when the people condemning him on my YouTube page, refer to Afghans as "towelheads and boyfuckers", it's pretty clear what they're really after. Further, I can't help but notice that the sort of people who, like them, refer to those of us with a conscience as "bleeding heart liberals", are invariably sociopaths who don't have hearts in the first place. After all, they never care about helping families leave war zones, or really care about civilians that are killed by white Western armies. Nor do these same people care about the homeless in their own hometowns. So bite me. I'd rather have a "bleeding heart" than a dead soul.
Regarding Prime Minister Harper's chest thumping over passing the stimulus package... Considering that his government has a track record for sneaky, illegal and unconstitutional behaviour, it has absolutely zero right to demand that Parliament just rush the package through without any questions asked. That's like giving someone a baseball bat, a way to lock you in the room with him, and then closing your eyes to pretend everything's alright.
Regarding the school in New Brunswick that is no longer allowing anyone to sing "O, Canada" -- first of all, since making the first video on that, I've been contacted by Canadian citizens, by birth, who refuse to sing the anthemn for moral reasons. Why am I mentioning this? Because naturally, some of the comments I received on that assumed that indignant immigrants are to blame. I'm just pointing out that that's not necessarily true. Anyway, some of the other comments came from people who refused to even stand respectfully for the anthemn. Once again, I ask "Why are you here, if you have such a low opinion of where you live?"
When I went after Bell Canada for holding its customers responsible for hacked phone lines, one of the comments I had on the Comedy Network was to the effect that the customers are to blame, for not keeping their lines secure. First of all, one of the developments of that is that customers who do change their passwords often, are still being hacked and billed. In any event, this person conveniently missed my point: not only is it unconscionable for Bell to bill customers for calls that it knows with absolute certainty that they did not make, but since Bell is directly profiting from a crime wave, then the managers responsible should probably be arrested. That position stands.
When I critcized the RCMP for taking FOREVER to admit that its officers are a little trigger happy with tasers, I got an interesting comment from a gentleman in Ottawa, who supposedly works with the Mounties, and took great offence to the fact that I have an opinion on a high-profile issue, that is being reported all over the media and Internet. I don't care particularly if the man thinks newspapers and TV news constantly lie -- even if that is really foolish and sweeping -- but the fact is that my opinion on Robert Dzekanski's death is based on the UNCUT video that has been on YouTube and several other web sites for the last two years. The video that clearly shows the man was barely armed, not threatening the four heavily armed officers at all, and yet was shot repeatedly with the taser without warning. The last time I checked, I have a right to an opinion in this country, especially one that is based on facts that I've actually bothered to research.
Finally, I've saved the best for last. My most popular rant this time, by far, was my tirade on the controversial show "Toddlers and Tiaras". Many of the comments I received agreed that it was exploitive, but a lot of others said that these sandbox beauty pageants are harmless. To be fair, not all pageants are created equal, as "wvpageantmom" was kind enough to point out. In other words, some are more subdued than others. However, to say that parading little girls around in skimpy clothes, having dance provocatively, sending them to tanning salons, and so on, isn't warping them, is pretty naive if you ask me.
Then, there was "pageantsisterX14" who took it a step further by saying this: "my lilttle sister does glitz pageants nd they SHOULD NOT be illegalized. nd guess wat toddlers and tiaras may film my sister. my little sister is perfect. u just dont like them because u r r ugly nd look like a geeks. so suck it nd dont watch the show if u dont like it! who cares about inner beauty? i dont. it doesnt matter the slitest bit. nither does skool spelling or grammer. only plp who r UGLY care about tht stuuf. an example is u!"
My dear, even I lack the casual brutality, to say what I really feel about you, so I'll defer to Brian Griffin of "Family Guy".
One last thing, and then I'm splitting for a few weeks: some people have noticed that I've started using a different sign-off; "That's it for me", rather than "Enough said". That's because some have suggested that it came off as trying to shut out feedback, but since then some have said they miss the old one. So between now and April, how about you tell me which one you prefer? Whichever one wins, I'll start using in Season 4. See you then.
In "Psychotic Hatreds", where I first went on about my personal pet peeves, I mentioned that I strongly despise people who call themselves Christians, yet apparently go out of their way to not follow the Gospel at all. Specifically, I talked about the conceited and intolerant views that they often have -- getting on a soapbox and saying that their faith is the only right one, that The Bible is true just because it says it is God's Word, an oddly selfish and greedy lifestyle that Jesus Himself shunned, and so on.
Well, a fellow named "Chaos1286" said "I dont agree... You shouldnt talk about things you dont understand... by this im talking about christianity...you are certainly entitled to your opinion as an atheist."
Let me start this response very simply: Chaos, I never once said that I am an atheist. Pay attention. If you can't even get such a basic detail as THAT right, you already look like you're yanking my chain. Second, what exactly do I supposedly not understand? Everything that I stated about Christianity comes from actually reading verses from The Gospel, and observations I've made of some of the "truly devout". So if you can show me where Jesus said that being peaceful, modest, and humble is wrong, by all means do so. Good luck.
While it wasn't for the "Smell Test" rant, I did get a bit of flack elsewhere, for criticizing Israel during the Gaza invasion a while back. So first of all, let me make one thing clear: criticizing Israel is not being Anti-Semitic. Anyone who says otherwise is either an idiot or a bully. I'll explain it this way: criticizing Sudan isn't being Anti-Black, criticizing North Korea isn't being Anti-Asian, criticizing North America and Europe isn't being Anti-Christian, so what in the hell would criticing Israel be Anti-Semitic?
The second issue: I don't dispute that Israel has a right to exist and defend itself. However, no one has yet explained to me why it is acceptable for Israel to bulldoze and bomb homes in places that don't belong to it, blow up schools, hospitals, ambulances, and humanitarian missions, and kill three or four times as many women and children as they kill terrorists; yet, Hamas fires a few badly aimed rockets that have killed about a dozen people, and is considered a grave threat to civilization in the Middle East. Please.
The third issue: if you're going to argue with me on this, don't bother presenting anything that comes from the Israeli Defense Force, Israeli Government, Jewish Defence League, or any other blatantly Zionist group. Why? Because they're never going to be honest about what they're doing. I'm amazed to have actually needed to explain this to grown adults, but during a war, people always make this stuff called "propaganda". It consists of half-truths and bald-faced lies, designed to make the author's side look more heroic than it really is. This isn't that strange of a concept; whenever one of us is caught doing something wrong, what's the first thing we do? Make an excuse! Usually a variation of "He started it!"
While we're at it, I also got some comments on my Omar Khadr video from last year, protesting his being beaten and seemingly railroaded, on charges that he threw a grenade at a US Army medic in Afghanistan. I say "railroaded", because the evidence against him is flimsy at best. But, because his family is tied to Al Qaeda, a lot of people seem to think that Omar is already guilty, and basically deserves to be fed to the dogs. Well, the last time I checked, under International Law, Khadr is entitled to a fair trial, due process, presumed innocence until guilt is proven and to not be beaten or tortured by his captors. As soon as we throw that away, we're no better than the animals in the Taliban that we're supposedly wanting to stop.
Furthermore, when the people condemning him on my YouTube page, refer to Afghans as "towelheads and boyfuckers", it's pretty clear what they're really after. Further, I can't help but notice that the sort of people who, like them, refer to those of us with a conscience as "bleeding heart liberals", are invariably sociopaths who don't have hearts in the first place. After all, they never care about helping families leave war zones, or really care about civilians that are killed by white Western armies. Nor do these same people care about the homeless in their own hometowns. So bite me. I'd rather have a "bleeding heart" than a dead soul.
Regarding Prime Minister Harper's chest thumping over passing the stimulus package... Considering that his government has a track record for sneaky, illegal and unconstitutional behaviour, it has absolutely zero right to demand that Parliament just rush the package through without any questions asked. That's like giving someone a baseball bat, a way to lock you in the room with him, and then closing your eyes to pretend everything's alright.
Regarding the school in New Brunswick that is no longer allowing anyone to sing "O, Canada" -- first of all, since making the first video on that, I've been contacted by Canadian citizens, by birth, who refuse to sing the anthemn for moral reasons. Why am I mentioning this? Because naturally, some of the comments I received on that assumed that indignant immigrants are to blame. I'm just pointing out that that's not necessarily true. Anyway, some of the other comments came from people who refused to even stand respectfully for the anthemn. Once again, I ask "Why are you here, if you have such a low opinion of where you live?"
When I went after Bell Canada for holding its customers responsible for hacked phone lines, one of the comments I had on the Comedy Network was to the effect that the customers are to blame, for not keeping their lines secure. First of all, one of the developments of that is that customers who do change their passwords often, are still being hacked and billed. In any event, this person conveniently missed my point: not only is it unconscionable for Bell to bill customers for calls that it knows with absolute certainty that they did not make, but since Bell is directly profiting from a crime wave, then the managers responsible should probably be arrested. That position stands.
When I critcized the RCMP for taking FOREVER to admit that its officers are a little trigger happy with tasers, I got an interesting comment from a gentleman in Ottawa, who supposedly works with the Mounties, and took great offence to the fact that I have an opinion on a high-profile issue, that is being reported all over the media and Internet. I don't care particularly if the man thinks newspapers and TV news constantly lie -- even if that is really foolish and sweeping -- but the fact is that my opinion on Robert Dzekanski's death is based on the UNCUT video that has been on YouTube and several other web sites for the last two years. The video that clearly shows the man was barely armed, not threatening the four heavily armed officers at all, and yet was shot repeatedly with the taser without warning. The last time I checked, I have a right to an opinion in this country, especially one that is based on facts that I've actually bothered to research.
Finally, I've saved the best for last. My most popular rant this time, by far, was my tirade on the controversial show "Toddlers and Tiaras". Many of the comments I received agreed that it was exploitive, but a lot of others said that these sandbox beauty pageants are harmless. To be fair, not all pageants are created equal, as "wvpageantmom" was kind enough to point out. In other words, some are more subdued than others. However, to say that parading little girls around in skimpy clothes, having dance provocatively, sending them to tanning salons, and so on, isn't warping them, is pretty naive if you ask me.
Then, there was "pageantsisterX14" who took it a step further by saying this: "my lilttle sister does glitz pageants nd they SHOULD NOT be illegalized. nd guess wat toddlers and tiaras may film my sister. my little sister is perfect. u just dont like them because u r r ugly nd look like a geeks. so suck it nd dont watch the show if u dont like it! who cares about inner beauty? i dont. it doesnt matter the slitest bit. nither does skool spelling or grammer. only plp who r UGLY care about tht stuuf. an example is u!"
My dear, even I lack the casual brutality, to say what I really feel about you, so I'll defer to Brian Griffin of "Family Guy".
"I think I have a theory about why you're such a bitch. You see, Connie, you're popular because you developed early and started putting out when you were 12, but now, you can't stand to look at yourself in the mirror because all you see is a whore. So you pick on Meg to avoid the inevitable realization that once your body is used up by age 19, you're gonna be a worn-out, chalky skin, burlap sack that even your stepdad won't want. How's that? Am I in the ball park?"
One last thing, and then I'm splitting for a few weeks: some people have noticed that I've started using a different sign-off; "That's it for me", rather than "Enough said". That's because some have suggested that it came off as trying to shut out feedback, but since then some have said they miss the old one. So between now and April, how about you tell me which one you prefer? Whichever one wins, I'll start using in Season 4. See you then.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
