Monthly Archives:
November 2005

thots

Don't Just Lick the Icing

In a move that is sure to cause the entire nation of China to jump at once and shift the axis of the earth when they land Paul McCartney announced he will never perform in China because cats and dogs would look nice as a coat. That’s right, because cats and dogs are not guaranteed a nice life and would look fabulous worn over a sleeve-less evening gown on any woman painting the town communist-red, McCartney will not visit that country. Absolutely Shocking.

Sir Paul will, however, play music in and for countries that do not guarantee those same privileges to its citizens. In fact he will beam his music into outer space to people from those countries that neglect the poor entirely. The fact is that in the US poverty rose from 12.1% in 2002 to 12.5% in 2003 according to the US Census Department. Which means that there were about 35.9 million people living in poverty in 2003. About 24% of blacks, 22.5% of Hispanics, and 23.2% of Native Indians and Alaskans were reported as living in poverty. (A little more shocking than my Dachshund parka.)

As far as single parent families go, it appears that neither Canada or the US cares at all. Over half of single-parent families live in poverty. (50.2% in Canada and 59.5% in the US.) In Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Belgium that number is 10% or less. So it must, at least, be possible to lower it. In Canada and the US, when there are two parents, the percent living in poverty is much lower (comparable to Belgium and Finland’s single parent families respectively). The numbers for duel parent-ship are 7.4% an 11.1% respectively. [More stats on Child Poverty] (My Chocolate Lab golf jacket cannot be as disturbing as this.)

But McCartney does not seem to think this is as urgent as shunning China because cats and dogs don’t get their day in the sun (only a date with the taxidermist). Maybe killing pets for food and warmth is not a bad idea. While the inequality in China is growing faster than in other industrialized countries, poverty is on an uneven decline. With a current population of about 1.3 Billion China had about 14 million urban poor in 2003. While some may frown on me using today’s estimated population and 2 year old poverty amounts it may be worth mentioning that rural poverty in China has gone down from 30% in 1978 to 4.6% in 1998. And that does not appear to be a trend the US or Canada seem to be following.

But it is always easier to catch some tail if that tail is your own. (If you know what I mean.) (And I mean it is easier to touch and think about yourself rather than looking for some action outside your own psychosis.) The focus on the plight of cats and dogs while neglecting fellow spaceship earth human cargo is a little insensitive. Sure animals should not be tortured, penned up in unreasonable cages and so on, but come one there are issues facing people that need to be addressed.

About 3 million people will die each year due to malaria. And yet much more money spent on a cure for cancer than on malaria vaccinations. Cancer causes about 555,000 deaths a year while there are more deaths from diarrhea in Africa (707,000) and the South East (604,000) than there is for cancer world-wide. I have yet to see a telethon for malaria or diarrhea.

It seems that it is easier to root for causes that are inconsequential in scope than to actually do anything real. Cats and dogs make great pets (except cats) and make for great headlines but diarrhea does not make for a good story. (Except the story that General Lee, during the US civil war, had diarrhea and that diarrhea was a leading killer during that war. And the fact that US President James Polk died of debilitating diarrhea. But this is no laughing matter.)

What is going on here with celebrities such as Sir Paul is that it is easiest and, might I add, tastiest to lick the icing off a cupcake rather than eating the whole thing. While animals, the environment, trees, and ocean front property are things which enrich our lives and make the world sweeter, they are just the icing. People are the real thing. We can fight forever over who owns this land or that land, or that puppies and kittens are people too but what is missing is the outrage that we keep killing each other because we are too damn lazy to care about things that actually matter. I smoke my cigarettes and I know I can get cancer but I drink water that is treated so that the likelihood that I die of diarrhea is smaller. Our bottled water is a luxury. People that are dieing because they has gots da runs can’t really afford such an extravagant commodity. But then again diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis and Mary Tyler Moore syndrome (multiple sclerosis) are fashionable. No one wants to wear a diarrhea pin on their arm.

So, we will continue to lick the icing and then chuck the cupcake out after nibbling the edges. It is a damn shame that celebrities are not real people.

Comments Off
news Politics

Not News for November 28th

There is news and then there is big news. The news is that Paul Martin’s government lost a confidence vote. So now the politicians can stop climbing over and dry-humping each other and can unzip their pants and forcefully screw the electorate. But, apparently, Canadians want a dominatrix and a semblance of monogamy. Supposedly news agency and pollsters know what Canadians want, and that is a majority government. If these ass-clowns know what we want then why are they not running for office?

The answer is simple: They want to appear impartial.

So now the event that we all were waiting for and knew the ending of in advance has finally passed. So really it is not news. Before his government fell, Paul Martin was tossing a coin, maybe to see how he would vote. And to no ones surprise he was booed and heckled like any politician should be. But then again, this is not news.

The Big News: There is nothing new to report.

Comment (1)
news Politics thots

Shh. Her Brain is Taking a Shit

“Liberals don’t believe there is such a thing as “fact” or “truth.” Everything is a struggle for power between rival doctrines.” — Ann Coulter

I loathe politics but, as Sun Tzu said “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer,” I follow and study politics. I do not, admittedly, keep totally up to date but what I do try is to understand the opinions and ideas of those around me. I may or may not be very good at this but I do try to get into the head of the person I am talking to. That is the only way that any progress can be made in understanding real-life scenarios. It is unlikely that another Hitler will rise up, yet I understand the argument for sustaining the military. However, I whole-heartedly disagree. There are other methods.

In a conversation I had, a former soldier told me how disappointed he was to see so few poppies being worn and how disrespectful that was. I asked him what he would have thought about my grandfathers who were Conscientious Objectors during WWII. He called them “pussies.” I told him that if I wore a poppy then I would be disrespecting their memory. He maintained that they were “pussies.” To which I retorted that my grandfathers were taking a stand that they believed in (for religious reasons) and the soldiers fighting were doing the same. How can one be called a pussy and one not? The one who is fighting is, in a sense, taking the easy way out. The thing is, I understand the urge to meet deadly force with deadly force yet I do not feel that those that use this force are right. I also do not feel that those who use or advocate for the use of this force even try to understand the dynamics of their enemy outside the arena of tactical warfare. But here I will digress. The issue of war is symptom of a problem but not the cause itself. [Interestingly my friend told me that his grandfathers did everything they could to keep from going to war, including breaking one of their legs.]

Ann Coulter is the problem. Or, more correctly, Ann Coulter is the physical manifestation of the problem. While she may not be the devil herself, she very well may be the spawn. The issue with Ann is not her devilish looks (good or bad depending on your sensibilities) but rather her rhetoric. Throughout her site she spews rhetoric which neither helps prove a point or to disprove another.

Her preferred weapon is using attacking words in an attempt to prevent herself from being on the defensive. In her November 23rd post she takes on the so-called “liberal” Democrats for the disparity between their public statements and their voting habits. While this may be a meaningful exercise, her habit of using empty words like “treason” and “traitor” makes her akin to a Tony Little workout. “Technique Technique Technique.” Worthless, meaningless and futile not to mention redundant. [I hope you remember those infomercials.] Coulter and Little will not be able to shave any liberal or fat off your ass.

The problem is that Coulter continually tries to remind people that she can be a bitch. She is an angry individual who does not appear to like to stop and think out side the Pentagon-box. Coulter, on her site, calls for the infamous “liberals” to produce one person unjustly charged by Joseph McCarthy. It appears that as long as this never happens McCarthy is justified and her streak of correctness will remain unbroken. The problem with this proposal, though, is that McCarthy’s rules for charging someone were defined by McCarthy and, therefore, it would be impossible to produce such an individual. That is the same problem with Coulter. She defines her own rules (we all do to some extent) and she will not be able to be proven wrong unless she is willing to place her own ideology on the chopping block.

I am not asking her, or anyone else like her, to be fair or egalitarian. Lord knows that I am not even here on my own forum. What I am asking for is to drop the rhetoric. If you are so right in all you believe then just once be willing to admit you are wrong. Beliefs are not like a house of cards. It is possible to be wrong on the Iraq war but still right about the economy, McCarthy, religion, and GWBush. It is possible to have an America where someone can criticise the Commander in Chief but still believe in the office of the President. It is possible to make a mistake here or there and still maintain your principles.

Coulter claims McCarthy is misunderstood (not in those words but the premise is there) and that E R Murrow’s good friend was a Soviet spy. She is on the offensive trying to defend McCarthy. If she can attack the friend of someone who has grown into a sort of liberal icon then she can get the icon itself. In the same way it appears that if Bush is attacked then it is her that is being attacked. Her ideals, beliefs and understanding of the world around her. This is a huge fallacy in reason. Bush could go on TV tomorrow and state that he lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, Rove and Cheney could volunteer the information that they leaked Plame’s identity and they all step down from their positions yet Coulter would remain Coulter. And, for Coulter at least, that is a good thing. But it does not look like that is how she and other rhetoric giants see things. It is all or nothing.

But the main issue with Coulter is that she uses the words “left” and “liberal” throughout her diatribes. While I do not have an issue with these words themselves it is the tone and baggage that she attaches to them. There is no one person she is directing these words to. Simply stated, she is pointing fingers at all those who, on one point or another, is to the left of Reagan. Or the person is a democrat. But she is vague in many of her accusations. She does not engage in conversations or debates she cannot win on her own terms and she refuses to admit that there are areas in which she may be wrong.

I believe there is a truth out there that can be believed in. But the only way to discern that truth is to take time to discover it. All the hate in the world for things you disagree with will not help the truth to be distilled. It is only through the dialogue between competing doctrines that this can be discovered. My hate is not for the physical-manifestation of rhetoric that is Ann Coulter. It is for the rhetoric itself. I fear that if I killed rhetoric then Ann Coulter’s frozen heart would melt and the Bush Administration would die. Except for Cheney whose heart will beat forever because of the pace-maker. And Rove, whose darkness keeps him alive.

I have a theory about Ms Coulter. There is no way someone could have as much hate as she does for something as vague as a “liberal.” I can only speculate that she manufactured this hate but then became so wrapped up in it that there was no turning back. But now that she is such a mega-star (touring with Prussian Blue??) she and her copy-and-paste jargon and broken rhetoric are something to be dealt with. The thing is that she appears to think something similar about the “liberals.” I say she does not discuss without screaming and seething. She say the same about the liberals. I figure when she opens her mouth her brain is taking a shit.

Some Links
The Best Quotes From Ann Coulter’s ‘Slander’ – selected by Coulter (I believe)
Some Coulter Quotes
Ann Coulter voodoo Doll
A Review of Her book Slander
Coulter – Evil or Stupid (well written article)
A Conservative against Coulter
More Coulter Quotes

Unless she does or says something incredibly stupid I hope to never mention her again here.

Comments Off
news Politics

Non-Confidence for All, and to All a G'Nite

In an unprecedented move the Conservatives finally tabled a motion for a vote of non-confidence. The is unprecedented because the lame-ass opposition parties have been busy positioning themselves so that someone else would make a move first. This reminds of school dances (especially on sitcoms) where the boys are on one side of the room and the girls are on the other. No one wants to make the first move. Everyone is too chicken shit. But now, in another cliche, the shit has hit the fan. Harper, being the daring, bold, avant garde robot that he is, set his mechanical gears in motion and started the process of toppling the Tower of Pisa that is the Liberal minority government.

Once the non-confidence die has been cast we can expect the political evangelists to leave their abodes and come to ours waving tracts of a glorious tomorrow. The twist is this: instead of dieing in order to experience this heaven we all will want to die just because the process is so damn painful. “Mr.X is corrupt.” “Mr. Y is a bigot.” “Ms. Z kicked a puppy.”Mrs.V once baked a pie and did not share.”

Ooooh, there are goodies too. Everyone who comes to the door will be bearing gifts. This is wonderfully timed because they will be showing up during the Winter Holidays. These gifts, while not gold, frankincense or myrrh, will be just as lofty and fragrant. We will get tax-cuts, promises of a one or two tier health care system, and flaming bags of shit about the other gift bearers. It is going to be such a wonderful time. And we may get some blue books, red books, green books and maybe a rainbow book but no books that will ever make a best-sellers list.

Then, it gets better, early next year we get to choose who it is that will have been lying to us or, to put a positive spin on this, who it is that the losers will say lied to us. We will get to choose between a car salesman’s moustache, Droopy’s joules, and Sponge Bob’s brain.

People, apparently, want change. People are also scared of the Conservatives. And the NDP would only spend all of their money. The Green Party is, well, the Green Party. So it seems that our multi-party system does not leave too many options. The Liberals should be ousted from their position but none of the opposition parties appear to mature enough to handle the task of forming government.

[Note: I was going to post images to help the reader identify with my comparison to each of the party leaders but I was not feeling creative enough to edit any images. I did find a site showing then and now images from Weird Al's movie UHF]

[Note 2: I did not mention the PQ leader until here because, well, I guess I just did not feel I wanted to at this point. So suck it.]

Comments Off
news Politics

Nothing New Behind Door #2 Either

Nothing is new. Everything has been said, tried and done. And that is my paraphrase of Ecclesiastes. Woodward is back in the news. And so is Plame and Libby. This is so…so…very…umm…wonderful? I don’t know. The whole case is so stupid, petty and deliberate. Nothing is as it seems. It is terribly written, produced, and acted out; It is over-dramatized, under-played and under-scored by the sheer idiocy of it all; And it is broken up into such small itzy-bitzy pieces spread over such a long and drawn out period of time that it does not satisfy the scandal starved and it does not catch or maintain the interest of an Alzheimeric, Amnesiactic and ADD American public.

Woodward apparently got the CIA operative’s name before Libby supposedly leaked it or something. The case is so stupid. It should not be dropped but the US must have better methods of getting information than waiting for these idiots to come forward and willingly tell the truth. I seem to recall something about CIA prisons that used to be secret. Seems like the US Senate should set up something similar, put those prisons and government investigations under the CIA’s control, and then give the CIA the ability to torture. Like I always say, it is best to practice at home before going public.

Not me

Fingers: If you got em, point em. In Quebec the Parti Quebecois elected a new leader. That is not exactly interesting. Leaders have been chosen before. But now the Liberals in Quebec are saying “Here, you can be an MLA in this riding. That way we can yell at you from across the room rather than through the TV.” Nothing awe inspiring. The reason they want this is so that they can question him about some cocaine use he is accused of that happened in the 90′s. Wonderful. Nothing is new. We do not need to discuss what is going on now or to discuss separation or how things could be improved. Let’s talk about the 90′s, who killed Kurt Cobain, why the 80′s sucked, and let’s all wear plaid. Forget about the here and now. Let’s point fingers.

Christmas comes once a year, but no one stops talking about it. There may be an election this year and we all get to talk about it over and over and over. There is a simple solution and that is to wait until next year. I don’t understand the rush to go to the polls, whether it is in December, January, February or March. That is a four month span. Big deal. Why are the Conservatives, the NDP and the PQ so freaking scared of waiting. It would make everyone’s lives easier if they stopped playing their little games. Just shut-up and do your job, stop worrying about getting a promotion or demotion.

The job of a politician is, apparently, not to govern but to get elected. If there is no election at the moment then they are not doing their job. Blah blah blah. Moral Authority. Blah Blah Blah. Non-Confidence. Blah blah blah. Christmas. Blah Blah. No you do it. Blah. You do it. Blah. No way. Blah. I hate you.

Nothing new.

Comments Off
news Politics

All Barqs, No Bite

You have to have confidence in your ability, and then be tough enough to follow through.” – Rosalynn Carter

Every night and every weekend I keep telling myself that tomorrow, or after the weekend, things at work will be a little different. Or that I will have a new job. I develop these grandiose plans to improve my life, my workplace and, yes, the world. And so when the next day arrives I do what I can but it is never as big or elaborate as I had planned in those beautiful, self-righteous, self-absorbed moments just before I fall asleep. It is in those few moments between wake and sleep that I am King, but once I wake up I become subject to all the other forces around me.

And that is the case for the ConservaShits and the other lack-lustre opposition parties. The Liberals are at least waking up, going to work, making it look like they are busy but everyone knows this facade cannot last forever. But the Opposition parties are doing what they can to make it look like they are going to do something or that they are forcing someone else to do something. But then nobody does or actually is forced to do anything. It is rather a boring game when everyone calls everyone else’s bluff.

Yesterday, CBC reported that the Liberals were going to table some economic update that the Conservatives were going to block. This is what Gary Lunn, some sort of ass Critic for Public Works, said. Its seems the Tories played a cruel joke on old Gary because today Monte Solberg said that he had prepared a motion, but that he won’t use it. I guess no one had the balls to do it.

“We don’t want to say on the one hand that we’re allowing them to do their business and then allow the perception that we’re standing in the way of doing that,” Solberg told CBC.

Let me get this straight they don’t want to say one thing and then “allow the perception”? There has been nothing going on in the past year that you have been doing to stop that perception. You idiot. We are supposed to thank you for being so very kind and not getting in the way of government?

Everyday you ass-clowns are on the news making puppy-dog eyes at us and you are telling us your devious plans to take this unethical government down. “They no long have the moral authority.” “They are making deals with the devil.” “The NDP is dealing with the devil.” Vote of non-confidence here. Yelling and screaming there. But we are to believe that you, Mr Stephen Harper, are not trying to stand in the way of progress?

After re-reading one of the news articles I noticed something though. Harper’s Tories are saying they don’t want to be perceived as standing in the way of government doing its job even though they are. Jack Layton, on the other hand, I believe is misquoted or made a slip of the tongue.

“The New Democratic party can not express confidence in a government that isn’t doing things for people and we can’t condone the Liberals’ ethical conduct.”

The NDP can’t condone the “ethical conduct” of the Liberals? Ethical conduct is, in my mind at least, a good thing. Un-ethical conduct should not be excused, dismissed or condoned. But the NDP is standing with the conservatives who will say anything and do nothing. The Tories are not doing anything for the Canadian people either. They say the government is illegitimate but they don’t bring it down. They say the government is electioneering but they don’t want to be perceived as standing in the way of the government doing business. Yet they say the government is not doing anything except doing business with Liberal friendly companies.

The Conservatives say one thing and then do nothing. They don’t want to be perceived in the wrong light and that is why they keep telling other people how to go about doing their dirty work for them. Yet they are constantly on the news making appearances and saying the things that would have them look like they are standing in the way of the government.

The NDP says they no longer have confidence in the Liberals, it seems that confidence is something you have when people play nice with you but once those people stop playing as nicely then you lose confidence. I don’t think that politicians use the word confidence the same way real people do.

Politicians are stupid animals. They claim to know what the people of Canada want but they are too much of a chicken-shit to do anything about it because I don’t think they actually know what Canadians want.

Comments Off
news

Brilliance Right Across The Board

The people who write news headlines must have huge salaries. It is the headline, quite often, that will lure me into reading an article. For instance Al-Qaeda ranks Queen among ‘enemies of Islam’. This is an article talking about how the Queen of England is an enemy of Islam. I thought it was pointing the finger at the classic rock band Queen. The Queen of England is a logical choice but, in my mind, the glitz, glamour and girls that Queen incites may be a more reasonable one. Not that I am trying to add things to the Al-Qaeda wish list. (I debated whether I should call it a Christmas list or not. I decided against it.) All in all, it is a brilliant headline.

Some boys have decided to boycott McDonald’s on December 3rd. This decision is in hopes that the 300 people who will not eat at McD’s on one day in December will force Washington to do something about softwood lumber. This is brilliant. A great manuovre.

Some of you nay-sayers out there will bring up the point that McD’s does not sell or export/import lumber in the US or Canada. And that McD’s is a restaurant. And that the beef, eggs, and potatoes sold in a McD’s in Canada are entirely Canadian. As are most of the owners and employee’s in any given franchise. But that is not why this is a brilliant move.

The brilliance rests in the fact that it is an insane idea. Just like NAFTA is insane. Just like agreeing to NAFTA and then not honouring the decision made by NAFTA is insane. These boys have captured the entire scope of the issue perfectly and have begun a way in which an inconsequential number of people can boycott a restaurant that has totally nothing to do with the ruling. Brilliant.

In other news there is more light-bulbs of great ideas being turned on. Paul Martin wants to announce that Canada is rolling the dough. This is a great move by a PM to show people that the government has not squandered any more money. But the opposition, most notably the ConservaShit Stephen Harper, says this is “electioneering.” But Martin does not want an election until after Gomery II: The Reckoning airs as a made for TV drama. So if Martin does not want an election but is electioneering, is there an ace up someone’s sleeve?

The Opposition has given the Liberals an ultimatum to either put forth a motion for an election or to have a Christmas present for Canadians. The Liberals say that the opposition parties are trying to pass the buck on to them. So if there is an election the opposition parties do not want to be the bad guys, and yet they are still saying that Martin is electioneering. It seems to me that these parties are all trying to do some electioneering.

The opposition wants to be in power (obviously) but are too scared to make it happen themselves. And so they called on the NDP. Then they called on the Liberals. No one wants to be the guys that forced us to go and vote while wearing our Santa Clause and Reindeer pajamas. But they all want us to do it anyway. There is trash to be taken to the street but no one wants to take it there. If you want something done then shut the fuck up and do it yourself (STFU&DIY).

But this is all brilliant. These ass-clowns in parliament want to get stuff done and have the means to do it but they will not do it because they think it will make them look bad. The fact is that I don’t think anyone wants to think about politics over Christmas. I think they all would prefer to wait, but this is like Christmas presents for politicians. You want to know what you are getting so you sneak a peak or make your brother do it for you.

But these neaderthals are actually quite intelligent. They will keep putting their faces on the news telling everyone else what to do, just as if they were in charge. That way we will vote for them. That way we see that even people who disagree with them still listen to them. Taking charge without ever leaving your easy-chair. Brilliant.

That is the word, the word-bird delivered today. Brilliant.

Comments Off
thots

You Win. Your Illogic is Greater Than Mine

I have been accused of misunderstanding certain events, ideas and people in the past. This is particularly true whenever I take a stance on war and violence. Apparently I do not understand war. If I am wrong then the war-mongers would have to be right and what this means is devastating because that would mean that fighting in a war, any war, will bring about prosperity and goodness to all peoples. But this is not the case. If killing someone ever solved anything it should have been to stop the killing. Same goes for war. But wars continue. And the people who won the war and, often, but not always, said that the war would stop more wars from happening have been wrong. Instead war continues on and new ones emerge and, might I add, have been started by the same groups of people who vowed to stop them.

I may not know as much about the history of war as I would like but there are things about the people who know a war, any war, inside and out that discourages me from studying it. Like the elimination of any alternative option at a particular point in war. At some point in some a dispute, so the proponents of war say (even if advocating for it in certain circumstances), all bridges have been burnt – there is no going back. Bush says this about Iraq (from beginning to end) and few people disagree that once Hitler invaded Poland there was no other options.

Options are sometimes limited by what we know, think we know, or want to know. The old adage is that when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. To an alcoholic everything is a means to a drink. To a poet everything looks like a muse. To Freud everything looks like sex. But nothing is as beautiful as a single malt scotch, a Poe poem or one of Hefner’s wet-dreams. In all of these cases the answer to the urge is seen as always being the urge itself.

The urge to fight in a war is, generally speaking, brought on by a desire to defend. The US joined WWII after it was being threatened, for example. Sometimes the urge to fight is the desire to defend ones honour or the honour of a nation. This may have been the case for some Germans in WWII.

Now Hitler is dead, and good for him, but battles still rage on. War did not solve anything, it merely temporarily slowed down a process that started thousands of years ago. Now the United Nations exists and is supposed to help stop wars from occurring. But even the member nations do not help this faux-organization from running properly. If it were a true organization then it would be organized and the nature in which it runs would be adhered to by its members.

But that is not the case. Instead what happens is the members of the UN shout and scream and do their own thing. This is not a fault of the UN but a fault of the people in the UN. They do not believe in the UN in any way, shape or form. One does not have to look any further than to the US Ambassador to the UN.

And this is not unique to the UN, there are also trade agreements. The US refuses to remove and payback the illegal tariffs set on softwood lumber even though it has lost something like four NAFTA tribunals. The US, although not unique in any regard, will not play by the rules it has agreed to. And this is how disputes and conflicts start. One person believes a certain way and their opponent disagrees (basic conflict-management stuff there). And then the yelling and screaming start. Then, if they are idiots, they start fighting and shooting. (Then the wife cuts the man’s penis off, he calls her a whore and then calls 911.) But there is no war that can stop that the existence of disagreements.

Wars will continue no matter how many wars are fought. The process of war is such that eventually we will all die and one colour will remain on the board. And everyone knows that the best way to take over the world is not through Europe but through Australia. But until the day when the wars and fighting stops we will take turns occupying a particular country, maybe it is between Africa and South America, or between Canada and Russia. But eventually it will all stop. Someone will cash in their cards and go on a suicide run. And everyone in his or her path will cry “Foul” or “I thought we had an alliance” but someone gets hurt and someone wins.

That is unless one player decides that the rules of Risk do not matter and decides to make his own rules. The morale of the story is that war is stupid and people are stupider for thinking that war is a logical and reasonable way to stop people from killing people.

Comments Off
thots

Sacrifice Rationality on the Altar of War

The real problem of modern-day warfare is that there are too many civilian casualties. To call these deaths by any other name than murder is unjust. A police officer, in the line of duty, has to be careful not to shoot bystanders. A murderer is guilty of murder if he kills his intended target or a bystander. Now, some may say there is a difference and I agree. But I will only stop making analogies like this if the pro-war groupies do the same. “What would you do if something was going to kill and/or rape your mother?” This analogy does not actually work. All analogies of this sort are irrational.

The reason this analogy does not work is that, first of all, it is hypothetical. The person posing this question assumes creative control of the outcome. Secondly, the poser of the question assumes that I have the tools to stop the exchange. If the ass-wipe who is threatening my mom has a gun then the question is framed in such a way that I have a gun. I do not own a gun, why do I have a gun? As well, it is assumed that I will maintain my cool and make entirely level-headed decisions and that I am a marksman or can throw a knife accurately or that I can deliver a knock-out punch with the best of them. I cannot.

Next, this analogy does not work because it is assuming that the hypothetical translates into reality. In the case of Operation Iraqi-Freedom this would look like the attacker is Saddam, my mom is the Iraqi people and I am America. So far so good, but there is a problem. Why would I kill off my brother or my dad to protect my mom and myself? Or why would I blow up my parents house to make my conscience clear? That is what happens with analogy. Reality gets distorted. There are too many variables.

Another author I have read (name slips my mind right now) goes about it this way. The conversation goes something like this:

Q: What would you do if you saw a man pointing a gun at some children in a playground?
A: Do I have a gun?
Q: Yes.
A: Am I a good shot?
Q: Yes
A: I would do nothing.
Q: Why?
A: Because if I shot the man then the bear that he was protecting the kids from would eat the kids.

It is a hypothetical situation and cannot be answered. Another hypothetical is that if Canada did not join the war effort in WWII then we would all be speaking German. Even if this did happen, isn’t it possible that some other event may have altered or stopped such an event. This is assuming that there are no other variables to play with. Is it possible that Germany could have conquered Canada and things may have been better? Nazism is a plague and I totally abhor it, but there are always other possibilities. To suggest that war is the only answer is bullshit.

France surrendered and are constantly made fun of for that fact. But France gave up Paris so that it would not be destroyed. France eventually was given Paris back (albeit after many many people died so that it could happen). But the fact remains that Paris was not destroyed. In my mind that is a better model than causing any number of deaths.

Even if the discus ting and vile Nazi’s took over the world, would that situation have been one for ever? What if the war happened, thousands died but the Germans still won? Would that have been forever? There is no good answer to these questions because these are stupid hypothetical questions. As well, by saying that the only reason Hitler lost was because of those that fought against him is misguided. There are many other factors to consider.

Religion played a huge part. The Catholic church is largely responsible for not doing what it could have. The Lutheran church as well. But the most insidious are the ideologues: those who hold so fast and hard to their beliefs that they refuse to see the world from another angle. I believe whole-heartily to certain ideas but I am not willing to punch someone nevertheless kill them over those ideas.

Nonetheless, there is nothing stupider than war unless it is analogies about why we should all go to war.

Comments Off
thots

Respect the Death Poppies

Let’s say you are on the sidewalk and a funeral procession goes by, what do you do? You should talk off your hat and have a personal moment of silence, paying respect to the deceased and the deceased loved ones. What if the deceased is a murderer? You pay respects to the families of the victims of the deceased. Respect for the dead is respect for the living.

Today is Remembrance Day in Canada and Veterans Day in the US. In Canada we pay respects for those who died, in the US they pay respect for those that killed and did not die themselves. I prefer Canada’s method of paying respect. To salute so-called “War Heroes” is to salute murderers. “Way to go Ted Bundy!” and “How do you do, Jack the Ripper?” and “How’s the wife and kids, Manson Family?” Not really the message people should promote.

Respect for veterans may not be totally analogous to these How-Do-You-Do’s but to pay respect to these sanctioned murderers is to neglect and forget those that they killed. Both sides in a war believe they are doing the right thing. If we only salute the winners then we suggesting that “might makes right.” The world would be a different place had certain conflicts occurred differently.

Consider the Maccabean Revolt if Alexander the Great’s army had won then Judaism today would be vastly different, and the social climate may never have arisen which allowed for the birth of Christianity. But we today salute the winners of this conflict, whether we are Jews or not, because they won and helped produce the world we live in. At the same time the Bar-Kochba Revolt was a failed attempt at something similar. While fighting for freedom and Independence the Jews lost more freedom and independence but gained more persecution. And why not? They were attacking an empire and the empire won. This means that the Romans were correct and the life that we lead now is a direct result of that win. Salute the massacres and the winners of wars that we don’t believe in.

The Christian’s did not join in on the Bar Kochba Revolt because bar Kochba was being claimed as some sort of messiah and the Christian’s already had a messiah. The Christians, at that time, were converted Jews but did not support their families in this “crusade” against the Romans even if they hated the Romans with the same fury. So, it is natural to salute the Romans in this matter because the Jews were supposedly wrong. The Jews were right in the case of the Macchabean Revolt, but that is because they won.

Now back to Canada. I was accused today of being disrespectful because I refuse to wear a death-poppy. I apparently am disrespecting those who died in the wars or for the wars. For me to wear a poppy saluting those who died in wars is for me to disrespect my grandparents who were Conscientious Objectors. They did not believe in fighting or killing for any reason. Whose side would I take on this? I will not disrespect my grandparents. They stood up and fought, in their own way, for things they believed in.

Poppies are symbols of death. The poppies illustrate that through death comes life – much like a scarab to ancient Egyptians. However, the poppy also reflects that one death is more important than another. The soldier in a grave in Flander’s Field (for example) possibly killed others or prepared soldiers to kill others. These “others” that died are dead for the same reason as those we salute – they were fighting for a cause they believed in.

And if any mother-fucker fights, kills, maims, or destroys the hopes and dreams of another without believing in the cause of the war then they can rot in eternal hell-fire. But if anyone kills another without considering that he or she is affecting the lives of more than just the one about to die then he or she can fuck themselves in an orgy of fire, pain and suffering.

I will pause sometime today and think about those that have died on both sides of the battle-field. I will pay respects to those who have fought and killed but for the sole reason of trying to understand why a single person or an ideology is worth killing people over. There has got to be a better way.

Comments (5)
Next Page »