The Rintrarian Archive

Somena Media confronts Small Dead Animals. It is a great article; Clear, precise and articulate. If the ring-leader of the “Chow Chow Conspiracy” resigns and apologizes after being caught saying such outrageous and hideous things why do the Conservatives continue to function as they do after saying and photo-shopping equally offensive and demeaning things?

Read the post and then read the entire site. Brilliance and clarity will shine through.

“Stephen Harper not only opposes Kyoto, but he refutes the science. He’s back in the dinosaur era. Harper is just totally out of it.” — David Suzuki, on Canadian Alliance leader Stephen Harper in 2002

“Only a new Conservative government can provide real action on sovereignty, and will stand up for our Artic [sic] and for Canada.” the Conservative Website

Harper’s Tories will not support Kyoto and they seem to be reluctant to acknowledge the existence of global warming. Harper does not like the idea of companies being fined money for polluting and yet he is frustrated that the Liberals have not been able to best the American’s at the “Lower Your Green House Gas Emissions” game.

Quick recap: Kyoto is bunk science; global warming is not that bad; the Liberals have not done enough about Green House Gases; the Conservatives will not support Kyoto; and the Conservatives will not fine companies for producing Green House Gases. But then it is election time and now the Conservatives will make sure the Arctic is ours.
But why would we need to reclaim and ensure our sovereignty over the Arctic?

The United States has long challenged Canada’s claims to sovereignty over the Canadian Arctic, saying it considers much of the region to be international waters.

This could have serious implications if ice in the Northwest Passage starts to melt due to global warming and shipping companies decide to send vessels through the area to save time and fuel.[Emphasis mine.]

And so it seems that, for Harper, Canada has not done enough about global warming, which is melting the Arctic, and yet Harper criticizes Paul Martin for criticizing the US about global warming. Harper will not enact Kyoto which would, at the very least, be a start to fixing a problem and he will send ships to guard the results of global warming from the US and other countries. Martin yells at the US but Harper wants to point guns at them. [Guardian report on this war of words.]

While Harper wants to fight in the Arctic, Paul Martin says it is too expensive. While Martin wants to fight global warming. Harper says it is too expensive. The whole damned thing is too expensive but we can’t be too cheap to not fix it either. And we have to fix it on both sides. We need to curb the cause and we have to deal with the effects.

And there is debate about the cause, and the solutions to the cause. Some even suggest that the effects of global warming include Hurricanes. Hurricane Katrina is one of those thought to have been the sinful spawn of global warming. But recent analysis suggests that Katrina was a mere Category One Hurricane when it hit New Orleans. So then why the destruction? Too weak infrastructure to stop the storm? A government that hates the poor? Bush? Or is it something else?

The son of famed religious leader Billy Graham, Franklin Graham, suggests that it was God. And then Scarborough Country goes on talking about it. But others also don’t think that the US is Christian enough either. And The Onion implies that God is in a competition with terrorists.

The problem here is that no single group is claiming responsibility for global warming or climate change. Even if a company admitted that they were polluting they would likely state that the cost to change that is too great. The Liberals want to enact Kyoto which, in my opinion, is not enough and, instead of doing something real and coming up with more alternatives, they bitch-slap the Americans. (But kudos on that too.) The Conservatives say that Kyoto won’t do shit-all and so they instead want to protect the melted waters. The Greens and the NDP do appear to want to do something about the environment but until the Liberals and the Conservatives get their heads out of their asses nothing will happen.

We could just blame God. That way we do not have to assume any responsibility whatsoever. But I don’t think that is the way God would want things. So we could blame the sinners. But I recall someone saying “love the sinner, hate the sin” and someone else saying “Judge not lest ye be judged.” I think King James said one of those.

I love to reign over a tirade. Apparently some people love Harper. Others don’t. The people who love Harper think that any time something somewhat negative happens to Harper that it was orchestrated by a liberal biased mainstream media. If people snap pictures of Harper and there is a bad photo then it could not be the poser’s fault. It is the liberal media trying to slant everything their way. The liberal media is so crafty that they will, supposedly, do things like photo-shop the eyes of Harper to make it look like he has no soul.

I did a little further investigating into the whole “photo-shop and steal the soul” fiasco. There are two photos of Harper. One in colour. One in black-and-white. The one in colour appears to have Harper’s eyes “whited out.” The one in black-and-white appears to be normal. Working on a hunch I grey-scaled the colour image and colourised the black-and-white. What I found startled me. When Harper is colorized his eyes go foggy. When he is grey-scaled his eyes turn charcoal black. I tried this experiment on other images but the results were inconclusive. Why does this happen only with images of Stephen Harper?

Alas, here is my evidence. You be the judge. The first image is the colour image when it was grey-scaled. The second is the colourised black-and-white.

Graduating from a Christian college may not entitle me to be the greatest theologian in the world BUT I do have a couple of ideas about theology. Firstly, if there is indeed an Anti-Christ I do not think it is necessary that the environment around him be warm. Secondly, the New Testament does not speak of just one Anti-Christ but several, so to label someone as an Anti-Christ does less to mark that person as an evil person and more to give credence to a movement that may well be growing in numbers. Thirdly, I am not an etymologist but the word “anti-Christ” means being against Christ. Specifically it means being anti Christianity, Church, God and so one. I understand there are some nuances in the way the term anti-Christ may be understood when actually reading the Bible. Fourthly, while the Devil may be an antagonist to Jesus, he himself is not necessarily the anti-Christ. This goes with my point that there may be more than one anti-Christ. Fifthly, Christians, non-Christians, and anti-Christians all breathe out moisture. When it is cold that moisture freezes or something and becomes a smoke like substance. Everyone poops too.

In my case proving something sinister about Stephen Harper, I was given an anonymous tip. The tip came from SDA. (I reveal my sources, tough luck.) But Small Brain Dead Animals has it all wrong. Harper is not the Anti-Christ like she claims. He is more than that. And The Experiment has the proof.

The Devil will come in sheep’s clothing and the eye is the gateway to the soul. In a recent photo Stephen Harper’s true identity came to light. The first clue is his eyes. He has the eyes of a wolf and the body of a sexy sexy Ken doll. The next clue is his breathe. Frozen in his breathe is the unmistakable pentagram and goat’s head. When I first saw this I figured it must just be a coincidence so I enlarged the photo.

There it is. Stephen Harper is more than just a mere anti-Christ. Harper is the devil. A wolf in sheep’s clothing with magical breathe.

I have always thought that Terry Fox is the quintessential icon of Canadiana. He had all the answers, was a little crippled, moved slowly and then never finished the job he set out to do. And so other people had to try and finish it for him. Stephen Harper wants to be the next Terry Fox. One of his election promises is to fight cancer over there so we do not have to fight it over here. Fighting cancer sounds like a good idea. Two of my grandparents died of cancer. One never smoked. The other had quit twenty years or so prior to his death. It would be nice to have met my grandma and it would be equally great to wish my grandpa a Merry Christmas this year. According to Terry Fox himself (or someone who does research for his ego-maniacal self-named agency) there, in Canada, are twice as many diagnoses for cancer a week as there are deaths. And there will be about 50,000 cancer related deaths in a given year. According to the Center for Disease Control between 700,000 – 2.7 million people die from malaria each year. 75% of which are African children. Sure cancer is terrible but more good could be done provide Malaria aide to Africans.

But Harper’s mixed up concerns do not end there. Harper does not believe in gun control. He dislikes the gun registry (a valid complaint). But his answer is tougher laws and penalties. Harper asserts that “Gun crime has spun out of control because they have failed to do anything to reduce gun crime.” Yet gun crime in Canada is remarkably lower than the US. If this is the case, does that not warrant some thought as to why this actually may be the case?

For example, the number of suicides involving a gun in Canada has gone down. What possibly could be the reason for this? Is it the fact that there are less guns here? There are about thirty (30) times as many guns in the US as there is in Canada. Is this because Canadians need them less or is this because they are illegal or is this because owning a gun just because you can is a stupid idea? The likelihood of being killed by a gun is higher if you are in the US than if you are in Canada. (In Canada 80% of deaths due to guns are suicide, and the number of suicides due to guns is on the decline. Other forms of killing one’s self are being used instead of blasting a cap in one’s own ass.)

In my opinion gun’s are stupid unless you actually want to kill something. Handguns are even stupider because they are meant for not killing something but someone. Harper wants to keep everyday people from being criminalized but wants to make everyday criminals people. And there is something to be said about the NRA in being involved in Canada, but I don’t want to waste my time talking about those yokels. [For the sake of being somewhat balanced, here is some firearm Fact-Myth shit from gun-totting yahoos.]

Rather than making guns illegal, Harper wants to make it easier to get a gun. Rather than preventing crime Harper wants to make a sentence more severe. Rather than taking care of the causes of crime, Harper wants to to punish punish punish. And punch in the face. Maybe a spanking. While Harper does not like social assistance programs trying to help the less-fortunate eek through life he wants to help people get into a government sponsored program where food and shelter is provided. All you have to do is have some dope.

Mandatory minimum sentences for drug crime. And no decriminalization of marijuana. But that just makes sense. The war on drugs in the US has been such a great hit. Everyone is getting in on it. The prison population has never been higher in American history and it is all thanks to drug laws. So, while financial aide is taboo, getting room and board is A-OK. And mandatory minimums? Mandatory minimums do not solve the problem. They change the problem. Tougher laws will not stop crime from happening just like gun control does not stop gun possession. I do not understand how one can make sense and the other not.

So, to recap this loosely connected idea. Harper hates cancer but has no opinion of malaria. Cancer can die a slow, painful, wheezy death. But malaria better not come here because this is where Canadians vote. Guns are cool but gun violence is not. Gun violence is spinning out of control and must be stopped. But getting rid of guns will not fix that. Making guns easier to obtain and less criminal to own will not make more gun violence just more peaceful law-abiding gun-owners. Drugs are bad and to stop them the punishment must be badder. Stricter laws and mandatory minimums will stop drugs even though stricter laws will not stop gun violence. And the only government run programs that should exist are ones in which firearms are involved – police and the army.

I truly hope that Harper succeeds. He has the makings of a real hero. A leader. A true Canadian hero. I hope he is the next Terry Fox that way his mixed up vision of Canada will at most make it half-way. No, I take that back. If he does make it half-way then we have to pick-up where he left off and bring Canada back to a reasonable and caring and worthwhile place to live. Harper’s Canada is self-centered, narcissistic, confused, mixed-up and incomplete. Harper’s Canada is one to rally against and stop. Looking at a train-wreak is understandable. It is intriguing and horrifying at the same time. But if you can stop it, then you should. Letting it happen just to watch some shit is ridiculous.