Ever since November 6th of last year, over three thousand teaching assistants, contract teachers and graduate assistants from Toronto's York University have been on strike. As is often the case, they are striking over wages, benefits, job security, and allow their members to have a two-year contract with the university, which would bring up to Ontario university standards. There have been many offers at the negotiating table, and every last one of them was turned down by the union. Now, I'm all in favour of anyone -- particularly workers -- standing up for themselves. However, there is a line to be drawn somewhere, and most would agree that when York's students have been severely affected, but the demands themselves have become unreasonable, that line has been crossed.
Let's start this by looking at the other people that the union and the university have dragged into this tug of war: York University's student body. They've already lost about half of their school year; this in itself is a huge pain in the neck, especially to out of town students, and anyone who will now have to co-ordinate a summer job around make-up classes that will likely extend to July. However, in addition to that, several senior students have now lost their chance at applying to grad school, because of this nonsense. The university is doing its best to accommodate the teaching union, but because the union isn't budging, who knows how much damage they've now done to the careers of these students? Hold your horses, though, I haven't even got to the best part.
The latest offer from the university -- the one turned down by over half of the union -- would have enriched their benefits, given them a five-year contract, and -- get this -- a 9.25% wage increase. And they didn't think this was good enough! What the hell is the matter with them? Who else in the country even gets OFFERED a pay raise that big? ...Okay, other than the government.
Look, while I agree that unions have a valid purpose, it's at times like this when I wonder if they're run by a bunch of six year olds. Presumably they have noticed that in the real world, the economy EVERYWHERE has gone completely down the crapper. This is why companies all over the place are cutting back to the bone, it's called trimming costs. So not only is the offer the union had just plain shocking, but the fact that they turned it down is fucking stupid. Where exactly do these people think the money for a better offer will come from?? Jesus H. Christ, that was a great offer! You should have taken it, you dumbass bastards!!
By the way, I looked around some news forums the afternoon after the vote to reject this offer. There were hundreds of comments. The vast majority of them are slamming the union for this, and clearly I don't blame them at all. Not only is this whole fiasco wrecking York's reputation, but to be honest, it's cases like these that make a good argument for not going to university at all, taking up a trade, and just working for a living. After all, if the people you're supposed to rely on for your classroom learning will just fuck you over at the drop of a hat, what's the point? Enough said.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
The End of an Error
Wow. Today, Barack Obama officially becomes President of the United States of America. He will be the first coloured man in the country's history to do so, a fact that still doesn't sit well with some people -- though fuck 'em if they can't remember what century they live in. Anyway, Obama is easily the most inspiring and articulate statesman that this part of the world has seen in quite some time. That alone is great reason to celebrate him assuming power. I, on the other hand, am simply glad for one thing: BUSH IS GONE! Ha-HA!
Now, as embarassing as Bush's vocabulary blunders are, I'm not one to pick on that. After all, anyone who's seen my blooper reels knows that I trip over my tongue a lot, too. At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'm glad to see the White House Washout go, because frankly he's a delusional megalomaniac. I refuse to respect a man who thinks it's perfectly fine to arrest, detain, and imprison people without charge, or to ship them to some God-forsaken hellhole to be tortured, and then claim that this has prevented terrorist attacks that the government conveniently never mentioned to the public. Excuse me if I'm a little skeptical there, Dubya.
By the way, while I'll give the guy credit for admitting to some of his mistakes -- like declaring to have won the Iraq War, which is still being fought to this day -- that doesn't change the fact that Iraq never should have been invaded in the first place, and the reason why much of the world stormed into Afghanistan, has apparently been forgotten by the outgoing powers that be. Oh, and the guy also has no right to get indignant about his government's piss-poor response to Hurricane Katrina, given that on much shorter notice he's been able to bomb countries with little effective defense. Finally, George, someone should have explained to you a long time ago, that giving huge corporations all the money and power to screw the rest of the country, isn't going to do anything about the poor. Except create a lot more of them.
I suppose that strictly speaking, time will tell what George W. Bush's legacy will be. In the meantime, though, it seems that he really managed to accomplish was polarize the hell out of America, nearly give the Christian Right a shot at a theocracy, damn near wipe out a country that was no threat to him, and turn American politics into such a joke that the Republican party was all but destroyed in the last election. In fact, I'm already getting requests to give him the Douchebag of the Decade award. So, Barack Obama -- by personality and intelligence alone -- is already a welcome antidote to the sick farce of the last eight years.
As I've already said in November... President Obama, I wish you all the best in the next few years. May God stand between harm, and the places you must walk. And as for George Walker Bush... I shall say what several millions of people around the world, have been waiting eight years to say: Suck it, Dubya! Enough said.
Now, as embarassing as Bush's vocabulary blunders are, I'm not one to pick on that. After all, anyone who's seen my blooper reels knows that I trip over my tongue a lot, too. At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'm glad to see the White House Washout go, because frankly he's a delusional megalomaniac. I refuse to respect a man who thinks it's perfectly fine to arrest, detain, and imprison people without charge, or to ship them to some God-forsaken hellhole to be tortured, and then claim that this has prevented terrorist attacks that the government conveniently never mentioned to the public. Excuse me if I'm a little skeptical there, Dubya.
By the way, while I'll give the guy credit for admitting to some of his mistakes -- like declaring to have won the Iraq War, which is still being fought to this day -- that doesn't change the fact that Iraq never should have been invaded in the first place, and the reason why much of the world stormed into Afghanistan, has apparently been forgotten by the outgoing powers that be. Oh, and the guy also has no right to get indignant about his government's piss-poor response to Hurricane Katrina, given that on much shorter notice he's been able to bomb countries with little effective defense. Finally, George, someone should have explained to you a long time ago, that giving huge corporations all the money and power to screw the rest of the country, isn't going to do anything about the poor. Except create a lot more of them.
I suppose that strictly speaking, time will tell what George W. Bush's legacy will be. In the meantime, though, it seems that he really managed to accomplish was polarize the hell out of America, nearly give the Christian Right a shot at a theocracy, damn near wipe out a country that was no threat to him, and turn American politics into such a joke that the Republican party was all but destroyed in the last election. In fact, I'm already getting requests to give him the Douchebag of the Decade award. So, Barack Obama -- by personality and intelligence alone -- is already a welcome antidote to the sick farce of the last eight years.
As I've already said in November... President Obama, I wish you all the best in the next few years. May God stand between harm, and the places you must walk. And as for George Walker Bush... I shall say what several millions of people around the world, have been waiting eight years to say: Suck it, Dubya! Enough said.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Cold Shoulder
Contrary to some American stereotypes, Canada isn't a nation that's entirely frozen over, 365 days a year. As a man very famously put it, I live in a house, not an igloo, and that's the way it is for the vast majority of us. However, it is quite true that Canada is known for cold weather. I don't pretend to love it, but it does strike me as a little odd that so many Canadians HATE any sign of it, given that it's a normal part of this thing called winter.
As I post this, my hometown of Stoney Creek is sitting at -18 degrees Celsius, with the windchill getting to -28 tonight, and it will be that way for a day or two. However, that's the coldest it's been around here in quite a while. Without fail, whenever we get so much as a thimble-full of snow, most people in town complain about it right then and there -- wussies! Right now, Atlantic Canada has to deal with windchill of -41! Hamiltonians should deal with that for a while, before they complain about what we've got here -- compared to Newfoundland, Hamilton sounds like the fricking tropics right now!
Like it or not, in the middle of January, it tends to get a tad frigid in the Northern hemisphere. So the next time you're eager to complain about there being one bloody inch of white powder on the ground, ask yourself two questions: Short of moving to Florida, is there anything you can do about it?; Is it really worse for you, than anyone else in the country? The rational answer to both questions, is probably "No." Enough said.
As I post this, my hometown of Stoney Creek is sitting at -18 degrees Celsius, with the windchill getting to -28 tonight, and it will be that way for a day or two. However, that's the coldest it's been around here in quite a while. Without fail, whenever we get so much as a thimble-full of snow, most people in town complain about it right then and there -- wussies! Right now, Atlantic Canada has to deal with windchill of -41! Hamiltonians should deal with that for a while, before they complain about what we've got here -- compared to Newfoundland, Hamilton sounds like the fricking tropics right now!
Like it or not, in the middle of January, it tends to get a tad frigid in the Northern hemisphere. So the next time you're eager to complain about there being one bloody inch of white powder on the ground, ask yourself two questions: Short of moving to Florida, is there anything you can do about it?; Is it really worse for you, than anyone else in the country? The rational answer to both questions, is probably "No." Enough said.
Monday, January 12, 2009
The Smell Test
This is going to be a combination of current commentary, and a revisit of an earlier rant. However, my thoughts on both are about the same thing: public appearances. I'm not talking about how people dress, because nine times out of ten I really couldn't care less about that. I'm talking about backing up what you say.
As we know, recently Israel and Palestine got into yet another shooting match, over the Gaza Strip. Until now, this is a topic that I've never commented on, not only because some people can be really jingoistic about it, but because to be honest I don't think either side is even close to being in the right. However, in this context I think that it is important to say something to the Israeli government and military: if you want people to stop calling you a psychopathic bully committing war crimes and genocide, it would probably be in your best interests to stop bombing schools, hospitals, UN relief missions, ambulances, houses, and even some of your allies. Just a thought. Yes, I know that Hamas and their ilk like to hide among civilians, which genuinely makes the job of wiping out terrorists hard -- fine -- but you're never going to look like the good guys, if you keep grabbing land that doesn't belong to you, or blast the hell out of women and children. HOWEVER, you might just create more terrorists, who now have a good reason to hate your guts. I'm just trying to help.
The other thing, is people's response to my rant last year, over conspiracy theories. Specifically, I'm getting criticized over the fact that I don't buy the theories on 9/11. I've since looked into this in more detail, but my position stands: the stories are overblown at best. Now, since the theme of this blog is appearances, let's give the conspiracy guys some credit by establishing why these theories are popular in the first place: the U.S. government not only contradicted itself in a lot of places, when the 9/11 attacks were being investigated, but it went to the trouble of keeping some critical information out of the public eye, supposedly for the sake of national security. As anyone familiar with the McCarthy Hearings knows, this can definitely be a load of bunk. However, some of the theories concocted to explain this, aren't much better.
For example, there are people who say that the World Trade Center was demolished by explosives, as opposed to destroyed by the plane crashes. I've already explained why I feel this is very unlikely -- namely, the fact that these buildings were hit by two fairly large jetliners, which tend to burst into huge fireballs on impact -- but some people weren't too pleased with this. So I looked into this, and sure enough the engineering community seems to be pretty divided on this issue: a lot of engineers say that it was a demolition, but at least as many say it was the plane crash. It doesn't help that eyewitnesses are split on this, as well. So personally, I think it's dangerous to make an absolute statement, on something that even a group of experts and the people who were there can't agree on.
Another popular theory is the idea that the Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane, despite forensic evidence that suggests otherwise -- including bodies and debris found at the scene -- and that Flights 77 and 93 never crashed at all. Their passengers, supposedly, were deplaned safely, and asked to go into hiding. Think about this for a minute -- there is considerable physical evidence that both of those planes went down, not to mention a lot of eyewitness testimony. On top of that, between this and the demolition theory, you would need tens of thousands of people involved, and staying quiet, to pull something like this off -- and we're talking about a country where people will talk about their farts in insanely casual detail. There's simply no way, that something that sensational would stay quiet for long, especially when there's a very captive audience.
While we're on the subject, I'd like to talk about why these sort of theories aren't taken seriously in the first place, besides being -- by definition -- highly implausible. For one thing, a lot of those who take conspiracy theories seriously, use a lot of circular arguments. This means that someone holds a position so strongly, that anything proving it wrong is shrugged off as a cover-up. For example, a radical left-wing magazine called Counterpunch hired an aerospace engineer to look into the official story of what happened to the World Trade Center. What he found was that the buildings were destroyed, because of crash damage from the planes -- and he wrote about it in very intricate detail. Popular Mechanics interviewed about 300 other experts and came to the same conclusions -- so the demolition theorists all said that these experts are in on the conspiracy.
Another problem is that if you look into it in any detail, the motives are hardly ever the same, from one theorist to another; some say that it was staged to start a New World Order, some say that it was to create an excuse to invade the Middle East -- like the U.S. ever needed one that extreme before -- some even say that it was an elaborate form of insurance fraud! Again, if these people can't even agree amongst themselves, as to why the government would stage a massive terrorist attack, how do they expect anyone else to take it seriously?
I don't really have any more to add to that, except to say that whenever you hear some really outlandish statement, you should always look into it. Yes, that does include everything I've ever said on this blog. In this case, great places to start are Popular Mechanics, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and any newspaper with decent global coverage. Don't take someone's word for it, just because you like what they say. It may really be that they're just saying what you want to hear. Enough said.
As we know, recently Israel and Palestine got into yet another shooting match, over the Gaza Strip. Until now, this is a topic that I've never commented on, not only because some people can be really jingoistic about it, but because to be honest I don't think either side is even close to being in the right. However, in this context I think that it is important to say something to the Israeli government and military: if you want people to stop calling you a psychopathic bully committing war crimes and genocide, it would probably be in your best interests to stop bombing schools, hospitals, UN relief missions, ambulances, houses, and even some of your allies. Just a thought. Yes, I know that Hamas and their ilk like to hide among civilians, which genuinely makes the job of wiping out terrorists hard -- fine -- but you're never going to look like the good guys, if you keep grabbing land that doesn't belong to you, or blast the hell out of women and children. HOWEVER, you might just create more terrorists, who now have a good reason to hate your guts. I'm just trying to help.
The other thing, is people's response to my rant last year, over conspiracy theories. Specifically, I'm getting criticized over the fact that I don't buy the theories on 9/11. I've since looked into this in more detail, but my position stands: the stories are overblown at best. Now, since the theme of this blog is appearances, let's give the conspiracy guys some credit by establishing why these theories are popular in the first place: the U.S. government not only contradicted itself in a lot of places, when the 9/11 attacks were being investigated, but it went to the trouble of keeping some critical information out of the public eye, supposedly for the sake of national security. As anyone familiar with the McCarthy Hearings knows, this can definitely be a load of bunk. However, some of the theories concocted to explain this, aren't much better.
For example, there are people who say that the World Trade Center was demolished by explosives, as opposed to destroyed by the plane crashes. I've already explained why I feel this is very unlikely -- namely, the fact that these buildings were hit by two fairly large jetliners, which tend to burst into huge fireballs on impact -- but some people weren't too pleased with this. So I looked into this, and sure enough the engineering community seems to be pretty divided on this issue: a lot of engineers say that it was a demolition, but at least as many say it was the plane crash. It doesn't help that eyewitnesses are split on this, as well. So personally, I think it's dangerous to make an absolute statement, on something that even a group of experts and the people who were there can't agree on.
Another popular theory is the idea that the Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane, despite forensic evidence that suggests otherwise -- including bodies and debris found at the scene -- and that Flights 77 and 93 never crashed at all. Their passengers, supposedly, were deplaned safely, and asked to go into hiding. Think about this for a minute -- there is considerable physical evidence that both of those planes went down, not to mention a lot of eyewitness testimony. On top of that, between this and the demolition theory, you would need tens of thousands of people involved, and staying quiet, to pull something like this off -- and we're talking about a country where people will talk about their farts in insanely casual detail. There's simply no way, that something that sensational would stay quiet for long, especially when there's a very captive audience.
While we're on the subject, I'd like to talk about why these sort of theories aren't taken seriously in the first place, besides being -- by definition -- highly implausible. For one thing, a lot of those who take conspiracy theories seriously, use a lot of circular arguments. This means that someone holds a position so strongly, that anything proving it wrong is shrugged off as a cover-up. For example, a radical left-wing magazine called Counterpunch hired an aerospace engineer to look into the official story of what happened to the World Trade Center. What he found was that the buildings were destroyed, because of crash damage from the planes -- and he wrote about it in very intricate detail. Popular Mechanics interviewed about 300 other experts and came to the same conclusions -- so the demolition theorists all said that these experts are in on the conspiracy.
Another problem is that if you look into it in any detail, the motives are hardly ever the same, from one theorist to another; some say that it was staged to start a New World Order, some say that it was to create an excuse to invade the Middle East -- like the U.S. ever needed one that extreme before -- some even say that it was an elaborate form of insurance fraud! Again, if these people can't even agree amongst themselves, as to why the government would stage a massive terrorist attack, how do they expect anyone else to take it seriously?
I don't really have any more to add to that, except to say that whenever you hear some really outlandish statement, you should always look into it. Yes, that does include everything I've ever said on this blog. In this case, great places to start are Popular Mechanics, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and any newspaper with decent global coverage. Don't take someone's word for it, just because you like what they say. It may really be that they're just saying what you want to hear. Enough said.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Psychotic Hatreds
Welcome to 2009! We're going to start this off by going in a bit of a different direction from usual. Most of the time this blog is ranting about things in society and the news that happen to annoy me at any given moment, but I don't really talk about myself that much. Some of the fans noticed this, and want to know what my pet peeves are. That's a pretty fair question, so I'll tell you, in no particular order.
Pretty high on that list is people who complain about so many inconveniences in their lives, great and small, yet don't lift a finger to change it. Like people who have trouble using the Internet, but don't want to learn how to use it. I've honestly seen a teacher who was pretty deep in debt, but couldn't be bothered to work, for some reason. I just don't get this; can you imagine a doctor saying that you need emergency surgery, but saying he doesn't feel like giving it to you? Evidently my parents and teachers did something very wrong, when I was a kid: they told me that hard work pays off.
While we're at it, I really cannot stand people who pay no attention whatsoever to what's going on around them, then get on a soapbox to attack it anyway. Look, I have no problem with people saying something that I disagree with, but I think that there should be a law that before you open your mouth about it in public, you should know what the fuck you're talking about. Not too long ago, I got in a lot of arguments over Stephen Harper just sitting back and playing with himself, instead of doing something about the economy. Without fail, all I hear from his supporters is "What's he supposed to do, he's only been back in power for a few weeks" or whatever. The problem is that he's been in power for a total of about three years now -- and even though I don't have any training in economics, I for one saw this recession coming at least a year and a half ago, when the mortgage crisis turned up in The States. So Emperor Harper -- supposedly a trained economist -- should definitely have known something was going to snap and affect us, especially since I was taught in Grade 9 History that recessions are regular things that happen every ten or twenty years. That's why it's called an economic cycle. So the only way Harper could honestly have not had a plan, until the markets crashed and he was nearly kicked out, is if the guy either has no idea what he's doing, or simply doesn't give a damn.
And another thing: why the hell do blue-collar men and women honestly think that Harper cares about the working stiff? This guy thrives on high-end business interests, and until six months ago I've never seen him lift a finger to do anything about all of the local industries collapsing. In addition to that, he has repeatedly cut funding to or shut down groups that protect women's rights, not to mention weaken child care in this country. Why do so many people shrug off anything I say about the guy being a dictator in the wings, when all he's done since taking power is break the law, sue the opposition for pointing out that he bribed an MP, try to censor progressive voices, and finally dissolve Parliament just to save his own ass? Whenever I bring this up, people look at me like I have three heads -- BUT I JUST READ THE FUCKING NEWS!
I also have no respect at all for people who know full well that certain people are out of line, don't do anything about it, then have the nerve to lecture other people about things like decency and courage. Give me a break. To me, it's very simple: if someone I know is abusive and self-centered, then I stand up to them. Believe me, I've done this with people in every circle of my life, including some family members. I especially do this, if such a person is getting on the case of someone else close to me: what kind of a friend would I be if I don't go to bat for them when they're in the right? If you're not going to stand up for people, then don't pretend to care about them, I have no patience for soap operas.
Those who've been reading this blog for a while know that I don't have much respect for the local or provincial government either, and to be honest, it's because it's usually dumb as a bloody post. This is particularly bad in Hamilton, where city hall seems to have this allergy to doing anything useful, or even anything that will stop this city from falling apart. Case in point, it took them something like thirty years to build the Red Hill Creek Expressway, and when it finally opened, not only did we have several onramps cutting across traffic, but there are very few lights on the thing. Meaning that, if you happen to drive it at night, you will be blind as a bat. I've complained about this more than once, but for some reason the city doesn't plan on doing anything about it. They even went so far as to flat out lie to me, saying that there are lights out there, but they were burned out. Well, if that's true, then the posts are also completely invisible! Maybe if some of their staff crash into a couple of medians and guardrails one evening, they will change their minds... if they don't win some Darwin Awards along the way.
Finally, since some people have gotten on my case about anti-religious statements I've made on the show, I'll try to make my views on this a little more clear. I don't have any problem with people having beliefs -- it's when they just blindly follow it without any thought, or try to force those beliefs on anyone else, that I get pissed off. For the record, I have stood up to zealots of all faiths over this, from Christians all the way to Atheists. Stupidity and hatred are hardly exclusive to one religion. Generally speaking I get along with Christians just fine, the only time I look at them kind of funny is if they say something like "This is wrong, because God says so, and that's that!" Well, with all due respect, when the only proof of that is in a book that is well known to have been edited and altered several times over the last couple of thousand years, some of us have good reason to be skeptical. I don't mean to be rude about this, I really don't, but it is approximately the same logic that a five year old would use to say that Superman is real. Not to mention, The Bible contradicts itself so many times in tone and teachings, that you can use to justify pretty much anything, including things that are truly reprehensible.
As for some of the intolerant factions, such as the Christian Right, the reason I dislike them probably goes without saying by now -- anyone who watches them can tell that the group is racist, homophobic, and so zealous that they think non-believers have no rights. Heck, they wear it on their sleeves! But the fact that many of them use a religion of peace and love, to justify hatred, war, and oppression just sickens me. I've honestly come across some wingnuts who see no reason at all to help the poor, even though Jesus said many times that His followers are supposed to do exactly that! It's precisely because of this sort of bullshit that I don't have a religion, not because I don't believe in God but because I don't want to be mistaken for these heartless lunatics who give the whole concept of faith a bad name.
Ok, while I plan on revisiting this later on, I'd like to invite everyone watching this to keep the discussion going in the meantime. Talk amongst yourselves, message me with questions or more rant requests, it's all good. But don't ask me to do your homework for you, and please don't lecture me on things that anyone with a working pair of eyes can see is wrong. At the very least, I will have no qualms about blocking you. If I'm really in a bad mood, I might bite your damn head off. Enough said.
Pretty high on that list is people who complain about so many inconveniences in their lives, great and small, yet don't lift a finger to change it. Like people who have trouble using the Internet, but don't want to learn how to use it. I've honestly seen a teacher who was pretty deep in debt, but couldn't be bothered to work, for some reason. I just don't get this; can you imagine a doctor saying that you need emergency surgery, but saying he doesn't feel like giving it to you? Evidently my parents and teachers did something very wrong, when I was a kid: they told me that hard work pays off.
While we're at it, I really cannot stand people who pay no attention whatsoever to what's going on around them, then get on a soapbox to attack it anyway. Look, I have no problem with people saying something that I disagree with, but I think that there should be a law that before you open your mouth about it in public, you should know what the fuck you're talking about. Not too long ago, I got in a lot of arguments over Stephen Harper just sitting back and playing with himself, instead of doing something about the economy. Without fail, all I hear from his supporters is "What's he supposed to do, he's only been back in power for a few weeks" or whatever. The problem is that he's been in power for a total of about three years now -- and even though I don't have any training in economics, I for one saw this recession coming at least a year and a half ago, when the mortgage crisis turned up in The States. So Emperor Harper -- supposedly a trained economist -- should definitely have known something was going to snap and affect us, especially since I was taught in Grade 9 History that recessions are regular things that happen every ten or twenty years. That's why it's called an economic cycle. So the only way Harper could honestly have not had a plan, until the markets crashed and he was nearly kicked out, is if the guy either has no idea what he's doing, or simply doesn't give a damn.
And another thing: why the hell do blue-collar men and women honestly think that Harper cares about the working stiff? This guy thrives on high-end business interests, and until six months ago I've never seen him lift a finger to do anything about all of the local industries collapsing. In addition to that, he has repeatedly cut funding to or shut down groups that protect women's rights, not to mention weaken child care in this country. Why do so many people shrug off anything I say about the guy being a dictator in the wings, when all he's done since taking power is break the law, sue the opposition for pointing out that he bribed an MP, try to censor progressive voices, and finally dissolve Parliament just to save his own ass? Whenever I bring this up, people look at me like I have three heads -- BUT I JUST READ THE FUCKING NEWS!
I also have no respect at all for people who know full well that certain people are out of line, don't do anything about it, then have the nerve to lecture other people about things like decency and courage. Give me a break. To me, it's very simple: if someone I know is abusive and self-centered, then I stand up to them. Believe me, I've done this with people in every circle of my life, including some family members. I especially do this, if such a person is getting on the case of someone else close to me: what kind of a friend would I be if I don't go to bat for them when they're in the right? If you're not going to stand up for people, then don't pretend to care about them, I have no patience for soap operas.
Those who've been reading this blog for a while know that I don't have much respect for the local or provincial government either, and to be honest, it's because it's usually dumb as a bloody post. This is particularly bad in Hamilton, where city hall seems to have this allergy to doing anything useful, or even anything that will stop this city from falling apart. Case in point, it took them something like thirty years to build the Red Hill Creek Expressway, and when it finally opened, not only did we have several onramps cutting across traffic, but there are very few lights on the thing. Meaning that, if you happen to drive it at night, you will be blind as a bat. I've complained about this more than once, but for some reason the city doesn't plan on doing anything about it. They even went so far as to flat out lie to me, saying that there are lights out there, but they were burned out. Well, if that's true, then the posts are also completely invisible! Maybe if some of their staff crash into a couple of medians and guardrails one evening, they will change their minds... if they don't win some Darwin Awards along the way.
Finally, since some people have gotten on my case about anti-religious statements I've made on the show, I'll try to make my views on this a little more clear. I don't have any problem with people having beliefs -- it's when they just blindly follow it without any thought, or try to force those beliefs on anyone else, that I get pissed off. For the record, I have stood up to zealots of all faiths over this, from Christians all the way to Atheists. Stupidity and hatred are hardly exclusive to one religion. Generally speaking I get along with Christians just fine, the only time I look at them kind of funny is if they say something like "This is wrong, because God says so, and that's that!" Well, with all due respect, when the only proof of that is in a book that is well known to have been edited and altered several times over the last couple of thousand years, some of us have good reason to be skeptical. I don't mean to be rude about this, I really don't, but it is approximately the same logic that a five year old would use to say that Superman is real. Not to mention, The Bible contradicts itself so many times in tone and teachings, that you can use to justify pretty much anything, including things that are truly reprehensible.
As for some of the intolerant factions, such as the Christian Right, the reason I dislike them probably goes without saying by now -- anyone who watches them can tell that the group is racist, homophobic, and so zealous that they think non-believers have no rights. Heck, they wear it on their sleeves! But the fact that many of them use a religion of peace and love, to justify hatred, war, and oppression just sickens me. I've honestly come across some wingnuts who see no reason at all to help the poor, even though Jesus said many times that His followers are supposed to do exactly that! It's precisely because of this sort of bullshit that I don't have a religion, not because I don't believe in God but because I don't want to be mistaken for these heartless lunatics who give the whole concept of faith a bad name.
Ok, while I plan on revisiting this later on, I'd like to invite everyone watching this to keep the discussion going in the meantime. Talk amongst yourselves, message me with questions or more rant requests, it's all good. But don't ask me to do your homework for you, and please don't lecture me on things that anyone with a working pair of eyes can see is wrong. At the very least, I will have no qualms about blocking you. If I'm really in a bad mood, I might bite your damn head off. Enough said.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Douchebag of the Year, 2008
Well, welcome to the Bored on the Corner New Year's Special Column. Also known as, The First Annual Douchebag of the Year Award. There were certainly some interesting nominations sent in by the fans. The Douchebag of the Year Award goes to a publicly known figure who, through stupidity or bad attitude, made a particularly embarrassing or outrageous show of him or herself in 2008. Before we get to the winner, let's look at some honourable mentions.
Our runner-up, and most popular Canadian choice, is Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He gets this incredible honour, for not only deciding to do absolutely nothing about our dying economy during the worst crisis in eighty years, but for constantly using shameful, cowardly, undemocratic and even illegal means to turn this country into -- dare I say -- a right-wing dictatorship. Instead of following the route of every other Western country, and doing something about the economy, he chose to stop pay equity to women, and trying to bankrupt the other parties. This culminated in early December, when he not only turned Canadians against each other by calling a majority that has the power to get rid of him "illegal, undemocratic, and un-Canadian", but by taking the route of many dictators and suspending Parliament. If you think I'm being silly, look up Napoleon, Hitler, Franco, and Mussolini. Just for the basics.
The presently unknown men who hit teen Nick Perkins with a car, dragged him for hundreds of feet, and then left him for dead. Basically putting a belt sander to anyone is beyond me, nevermind a teenager who was just hanging out with his friend. Let's move on.
Getting into original nominees sent in by the fans, here's one submitted by Andrew Carter: anti-video game lobbyist and former lawyer Jack Thompson. This guy not only tries to pin the blame for all of society's problems on video games, instead of -- for instance -- poverty and piss poor parenting... but when he does so he is so blatantly homophobic, sexist, abusive, and slanderous, that he actually managed to get himself disbarred earlier this year. While we're at it, there's also the idiots who steal cars and stab cab drivers because they think they're playing the Grand Theft Auto games. There's also author Cooper Lawrence, for trashing the sex scenes in the game Mass Effect without even playing it. She later admitted that she had only heard of the game just prior to being interviewed on Fox News about it, and when she finally did see it, found it less graphic than most episodes of "Lost". Too bad she needed to have her ass kicked on national television before she finally admitted to being careless.
And finally, another fan nomination, this one from Meg Parchem: the shopping parasites in the U.S. who were so obsessed with finding great deals on Black Friday that they trampled people, shot at people, and then whined like crazy when the stores had to be closed over that, because they camped out for two or three days for the sake of a fucking discount. God bless us, every one.
But, the winner this year was a clear one, and I am honestly not at all surprised. There are those who I've felt more strongly about in the last few weeks, but unlike some of the people on this list, I care about what people think, and I care about votes. Ladies and gentlemen, by popular demand, the 2008 Douchebag of the Year... is Sarah Palin. Much of the reason for this, goes without saying, but let's take a look.
This time last year, hardly anyone outside of Alaska had even heard of the controversial Vice-Presidential candidate. So it really says something when, in less than six months, a person goes from a total unknown to one of the most ridiculed and hated politicians in recent memory. How did that happen? Well, a huge part of it is that much of her campaign was shrouded in hypocrisy -- like the fact that she had even less experience and about as much tabloid friendliness as Barack Obama, who she and John McCain frequently criticized as a rookie celebrity. Then there's her frequent accusations that Obama sided with radicals and terrorists, and not really being American, when she herself was blessed by a so-called witch hunter, her church believes in "reprogramming" gays, and her husband was a member of a hard-right wing, Alaskan sovereignty party. Hmmm... so it's okay for a white Christian family to hold highly violent and intolerant views of gays and pagans, and to be part of a party that actively wants to separate America, yet it's not okay at all for a mixed-heritage man to have been around an ex-terrorist when he was a child, to have a pastor who feels like blacks are still being marginalized by the government, and who believes in changing the status quo to actually represent all Americans?
By the way, don't even get me started on how Palin very blatantly used her children as political props. Though I must say, that exposed just how open and accepting right-wingers actually are about teenage, unwed pregnancies, at least when it happens to one of their more wealthy comrades. Or how she and John McCain not only encouraged the anti-Obama bigotry, but ignored the fact that most Americans -- right and left wing -- are fed up with the divisive fearmongering of the Bush years. Remember how they claimed that only the Red States are Pro-America?
Then there's the way she tried to prove that despite having never been outside the U.S. prior to the election, she was completely up to the job of being one heartbeat away from the Commander-In-Chief's office. This idiot couldn't even answer the question, "What newspapers did you read, before getting nominated?" So many of her answers to debate and interview questions, have consisted of totally dodging the question -- and rather pathetically, at that. This person then has the nerve to wonder why most of the world thinks she's a loon?
So, Governor Sarah Palin -- who somehow became the first woman to run for Vice-President of the United States -- congratulations on winning at least one thing, this year: the 2008 Douchebag of the Year Award. And before you try to send the CIA after me for posting this, which I wouldn't put past you, let me explain something to you: the reason why you have a lot of people criticizing you, is because you don't seem to grasp that when you apply for any major job, people usually expect you to know how to do it. When you give interviews or propose policy about ANYTHING, you are supposed to know what the hell you're talking about. Even most conservatives have said that you are not up to the job. Take a hint. Enough said, and Happy New Year.
Our runner-up, and most popular Canadian choice, is Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He gets this incredible honour, for not only deciding to do absolutely nothing about our dying economy during the worst crisis in eighty years, but for constantly using shameful, cowardly, undemocratic and even illegal means to turn this country into -- dare I say -- a right-wing dictatorship. Instead of following the route of every other Western country, and doing something about the economy, he chose to stop pay equity to women, and trying to bankrupt the other parties. This culminated in early December, when he not only turned Canadians against each other by calling a majority that has the power to get rid of him "illegal, undemocratic, and un-Canadian", but by taking the route of many dictators and suspending Parliament. If you think I'm being silly, look up Napoleon, Hitler, Franco, and Mussolini. Just for the basics.
The presently unknown men who hit teen Nick Perkins with a car, dragged him for hundreds of feet, and then left him for dead. Basically putting a belt sander to anyone is beyond me, nevermind a teenager who was just hanging out with his friend. Let's move on.
Getting into original nominees sent in by the fans, here's one submitted by Andrew Carter: anti-video game lobbyist and former lawyer Jack Thompson. This guy not only tries to pin the blame for all of society's problems on video games, instead of -- for instance -- poverty and piss poor parenting... but when he does so he is so blatantly homophobic, sexist, abusive, and slanderous, that he actually managed to get himself disbarred earlier this year. While we're at it, there's also the idiots who steal cars and stab cab drivers because they think they're playing the Grand Theft Auto games. There's also author Cooper Lawrence, for trashing the sex scenes in the game Mass Effect without even playing it. She later admitted that she had only heard of the game just prior to being interviewed on Fox News about it, and when she finally did see it, found it less graphic than most episodes of "Lost". Too bad she needed to have her ass kicked on national television before she finally admitted to being careless.
And finally, another fan nomination, this one from Meg Parchem: the shopping parasites in the U.S. who were so obsessed with finding great deals on Black Friday that they trampled people, shot at people, and then whined like crazy when the stores had to be closed over that, because they camped out for two or three days for the sake of a fucking discount. God bless us, every one.
But, the winner this year was a clear one, and I am honestly not at all surprised. There are those who I've felt more strongly about in the last few weeks, but unlike some of the people on this list, I care about what people think, and I care about votes. Ladies and gentlemen, by popular demand, the 2008 Douchebag of the Year... is Sarah Palin. Much of the reason for this, goes without saying, but let's take a look.
This time last year, hardly anyone outside of Alaska had even heard of the controversial Vice-Presidential candidate. So it really says something when, in less than six months, a person goes from a total unknown to one of the most ridiculed and hated politicians in recent memory. How did that happen? Well, a huge part of it is that much of her campaign was shrouded in hypocrisy -- like the fact that she had even less experience and about as much tabloid friendliness as Barack Obama, who she and John McCain frequently criticized as a rookie celebrity. Then there's her frequent accusations that Obama sided with radicals and terrorists, and not really being American, when she herself was blessed by a so-called witch hunter, her church believes in "reprogramming" gays, and her husband was a member of a hard-right wing, Alaskan sovereignty party. Hmmm... so it's okay for a white Christian family to hold highly violent and intolerant views of gays and pagans, and to be part of a party that actively wants to separate America, yet it's not okay at all for a mixed-heritage man to have been around an ex-terrorist when he was a child, to have a pastor who feels like blacks are still being marginalized by the government, and who believes in changing the status quo to actually represent all Americans?
By the way, don't even get me started on how Palin very blatantly used her children as political props. Though I must say, that exposed just how open and accepting right-wingers actually are about teenage, unwed pregnancies, at least when it happens to one of their more wealthy comrades. Or how she and John McCain not only encouraged the anti-Obama bigotry, but ignored the fact that most Americans -- right and left wing -- are fed up with the divisive fearmongering of the Bush years. Remember how they claimed that only the Red States are Pro-America?
Then there's the way she tried to prove that despite having never been outside the U.S. prior to the election, she was completely up to the job of being one heartbeat away from the Commander-In-Chief's office. This idiot couldn't even answer the question, "What newspapers did you read, before getting nominated?" So many of her answers to debate and interview questions, have consisted of totally dodging the question -- and rather pathetically, at that. This person then has the nerve to wonder why most of the world thinks she's a loon?
So, Governor Sarah Palin -- who somehow became the first woman to run for Vice-President of the United States -- congratulations on winning at least one thing, this year: the 2008 Douchebag of the Year Award. And before you try to send the CIA after me for posting this, which I wouldn't put past you, let me explain something to you: the reason why you have a lot of people criticizing you, is because you don't seem to grasp that when you apply for any major job, people usually expect you to know how to do it. When you give interviews or propose policy about ANYTHING, you are supposed to know what the hell you're talking about. Even most conservatives have said that you are not up to the job. Take a hint. Enough said, and Happy New Year.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Atheist war, in The Toronto Star
"Atheist Beliefs Deserve Respect Too"
Popular authors no more "ferociously attack religion" than religious writers such as Dow Marmur ferociously attack atheism. Marmur's criticism therefore oozes hypocrisy.
Marmur seems particularly preoccupied with scholars, saying that atheism was "fashionable among academics" in 1982 when David Hay published his book on religious experience. As a philosophy doctoral student and teaching assistant, I can attest that atheism is even more popular today, and I am optimistic that its membership will increase into the future.
Merry Christmas everyone.
Michelle Ciurria, Toronto
Your op-ed religion columnist, Dow Marmur, has written approvingly of inter-faith dialogue, although he does see pitfalls, and he gives the appearance of being interested in, and tolerant of, belief systems other than his own. I wonder, then, why he feels the need to express quite uncharitable views of atheists and other non-believers.
Rabbi Marmur really knows how to pile it on: "attacking traditional religion has become something of a sport," "authors who ferociously attack religion," "the guise of common sense and scientific objectivity," "their severe strictures," "their second line of attack," "shrill denunciations," "when atheism was fashionable," and "atheist tracts." And that's just one column.
I can hardly wait to rummage again through the dictionary and thesaurus. Somehow I don't think I should expect Marmur to participate in forming an inter-faith Canadian Council of Jews and Atheists any time soon.
Michael Collins, Toronto
As an atheist, I'd like to extend secular holiday greetings to Rabbi Emeritus Dow Marmur and assure him that, in spite of what he might have read, atheists do not feel close to God, nor to any other non-existent being.
Larry Moran, Mississauga
Let's contrast Rabbi Dow Marmur's comments about religion with atheism. His religious traditions come out of a book or books handed down to him loaded with compulsion and dire consequences if not followed. There is also a financial incentive for saying what he does. For someone like me, there are no rewards for what I think other than my own pursuit of truth and common sense. After I finish reading his column, the Bible, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, et al, I am free to agree or disagree. I am able to pick up Dawkins and say, "That's what I think. At last there are people who think as I do. It's exhilarating!"
You can have your faith. I define religious faith as something to be believed but unable to be proved. Stewart Fisher, Campbelleville
We need freedom from religion as much as freedom of religion. From time to time, a theist or an atheist notes that someone in the other camp has done something horrible or, worse, changed their mind.
Dow Marmur, in spite of my sense that he is a civil and reasoned man with whom it would be a pleasure to break bread, frequently plays this game, scoring petty points on serious issues of significant personal expression.
The person who wrote the headline, however, portrays a far less noble demeanor. Would he or she have been censured, I wonder, if the headline had read "'Tis not the season for Judaism"?
Andrew McCammon, Toronto
"Atheist Letters Stir The Pot"Religious people and religions also deserve respect. Virtually all the hospitals, schools and universities were originally opened by religious people – Christians in particular. I have yet to find a charity run by atheists. I would have more respect for atheists if that were the case.
Clarence McMullen, Toronto
Michael Collins sees the rabbi's words as uncharitable, even though Dow Marmur acknowledges flaws in much dogma. We await a similar acknowledgement from atheists. Mr. Collins seems unaware of the acerbity common to the current rash of anti-theist literature.
Stewart Fisher correctly describes religious faith as "something to be believed but unable to be proved," of course, depending on the type of proof required. Thus, we have faith. Atheism also lacks proof. Thus, atheists have faith.
And Andrew McCammon pleads for freedom from religion. Exactly what is the compulsion from which he seeks freedom in 21st century Canada? No one compelled him to read the rabbi's column.
Raymond Peringer, Toronto
Whoever wrote the headline for these letters misunderstands atheism. Atheism by itself is not a belief; it is just the absence of belief in gods. It's not even a single belief, much less a body of beliefs. Atheism by itself offers no guidance on moral, social or political matters. Atheism, like theism, can be part of an ideology, but neither can be an ideology by itself.
Jim Ebsary, Welland
"Little Regard for Atheists"
Raymond Peringer challenges the notion that atheists seek freedom from religion, and asks, "Exactly what is the compulsion from which he (atheists) seek freedom in 21st century Canada?" I can answer that question for him. We are compelled to recognize God every time we sing our National Anthem. We are compelled to be involved in prayers whenever we attend a meeting of our municipal and regional elected officials. And we are compelled to live under a Constitution that recognizes the supremacy of God. All of these strictures have been imposed upon the general population by bureaucrats or politicians without regard for the growing minority of non-believers in Canada.
Ron Ross, Brampton
"Atheists Deserve the Same Rights as Everyone Else" (mine)
The letters attacking an atheist, who was speaking out for his rights to be respected, disturbed and incensed me. This is not only as a non-religious person, but as a human being.
A writer asks, "Exactly what is the compulsion from which [an atheist] seeks freedom [from religion] in 21st-century Canada?" Well, speaking as an agnostic, I can tell you first-hand that whenever the general public hears about my beliefs, I am very often attacked for it.
Frankly, I and many others resent the implication that we are some sort of malcontents, just because we do not believe the same things as most of the country. We also resent having our beliefs dismissed, just because they are unconventional. The last time I checked, atheists have the same legal rights and freedoms as anyone else – so let's start accepting that.
Stephen Bryce, Stoney Creek, Ont.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
