Conservative Theory that Trudeau is Going for the Stoner Vote

I began to read this opinion piece online from the "Star Phoenix", and before the first paragraph was done, I was already getting that "right wing nutjob" vibe from the author, Les MacPherson.

I didn't know this until I checked the internet, but yes, the Saskatoon Star Phoenix is owned by the same group as the right wing National Post.  So there is a good chance this is purposeful conservative propaganda.

Breaking down the article to its basic arguments and assumptions:

- Justin Trudeau (Liberal Leader) is promising to legalize pot in order to capture the all important stoner vote.

- Stoners will hate legalization, (if it happens) as government meddling will make pot more expensive and less appealing.

- Dealers will hate legalization, as they will be put out of business by excessive government regulation and taxing.

- Trudeau will not legalize marijuana anyway, he is only lying.  Hypocritical liberal governments do more marijuana busts than conservative governments.

- Conclusion: Trudeau should wait until the US legalizes marijuana before doing anything.

- Recommendation (implied): Don't vote for Trudeau, as he is a hypocrite and a Socialist, (if that is not too redundant)


Seems like an inoffensive article, but there are some underlying right-wing assumptions that I do not accept.

- The negative stereotyping and use of the pejorative name stoner.  Why are conservatives always stereotyping people????  OOOPS now I'm stereotyping.  Anyway, it's true.

- The assumption that all the people who want marijuana legalized are stoners, and only stoners want marijuana legalized.  That is not true, as many "non-stoners" believe that decriminalizing marijuana will boost our economy.  (a non-stoner is the opposite of what a stoner is supposed to be in this article, I have no other definition for it).

- The assumption that if the government gets involved in the marijuana business, things will fall apart.  This is dumb, even from a conservative free market point of view.  OK, we need a short lesson in right wing free enterprise.  ILLEGAL activities are not free enterprise.  LEGAL activities are not automatically "government run". By Les MacPherson's logic, black market gasoline would be cheaper and more potent than legal pump gas. I don't think so.

- Les's conclusion is typical of your basic Canadian Conservative:  Wait until the US does it, on the assumption that, except for Obama, the US is always right.

I Think We All Know Why Obama Flubs Geography

I was reading about Sun News * fighting for status as a legitimate "news" channel.  In one of the comments, claiming that the liberal news was also biased, an example was given where the liberal news covered up for Obama's latest gaffe.

Apparently, on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Obama had said that various Atlantic seaports were on the Gulf of Mexico.  Is it possible that Obama has so little knowledge of US geography?  After all, I watched the show, and I did not notice any gaffe of that type.  But according to right wing sources, (Michelle Malkin) this gaffe was as big as the famous one where Republican Vice President Dan Quail said potato was spelled potatoe.
Let's compare the two gaffes.

Obama was naming places where deepening is needed, to me it means ports all along the Gulf *and* places like Charleston and Savannah.  He did not write "ports all along the Gulf  (places like Charleston, South Carolina, or Savannah, Georgia, or Jacksonville, Florida)."  Punctuation is important, especially when you are adjusting it to suit your propaganda purposes.

What kind of person will not only call this an example of Obama's ignorance, but also an example of Liberal left wing bias. I guess it's the same kind of person who will pretend there is actually a dash before and after  "places like...." instead of  commas.  And then say

"The only conceivable way to interpret what Obama actually said is that the ports of Charleston, Savannah, and Jacksonville are "along the Gulf" of Mexico. Of course, these ports are really on the Atlantic Ocean."

This text was not given in writing, it was in a live interview.  I heard a comma, I guess some nitpicker heard dashes, or some might have heard parentheses.  I already knew where these ports were, so it seems I was biased into hearing the commas.

In the video of Dan Quail, a student is spelling potato on the blackboard.  Dan Quail jumps in and tells the student he is wrong, and he needs to add an "E" to the end of the word.

One is actually the definition of an embarassing gaffe, the other is a deliberate misunderstanding by a hostile  commentator.  Apparently right wing "news" organizations like Fox and Sun News do not see the difference.  That's why I do not consider them to be genuine news.  They are too biased.  That is "the only conceivable way to interpret" their ignorant arguments.

Next time, Obama should have two versions of the statement, one for liberals who know geography, and the other one for right wingers who need a map and some red arrows pointing to all the ports.

* Sun News is a Canadian TV "news" station that is similar to the U.S. Fox "News".  And for those who don't know what Fox News is, it is a network news channel that claims to be "Fair and Balanced" but also claims to be the voice of the right wing conservatives and Republicans, counteracting what they call the left wing liberal bias of the mainstream press.  Sun News and right wing backers have so far been blocked in Canada in two attempts. One, to eliminate the restrictions on false and misleading  information in the news.  And second to force Sun News onto all basic cable channels free of charge, claiming status as an independent genuine news organization.

Were Humans Used in Nutritional Experiments in the1940's?

On the CBC news this morning, I heard a newscaster make some disturbing allegations.  Apparently, nutritional researchers withheld food from hungry aboriginal children in residential schools in Canada, in order to study the effects of malnutrition.

I had already heard about the previous scandal, an experiment where researchers apparently gave vitamin and mineral supplements to some, but not all aboriginal schoolchildren.  To me, that did not seem as bad as withholding food from starving children.

I am not trying to make excuses for things that were done a long time ago.  I understand there was a lot more racism back then, in fact there is still a lot today, but at least it is not as overt.  There was also a different attitude towards corporal punishment of children.  We don't have the death penalty in Canada today, but we did then.  Experiments used to be performed on human beings, not just aboriginals either.  Check out Donald Ewen Cameron on Wikipedia, doing experiments with shock therapy and drugs, resulting in death of human test subjects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Ewen_Cameron

So it seems the ethical aspect of human experiments has come a long way since the fifties, in that we are much more careful about obtaining "Consent" of the subjects, and when we finally do the experiments, it is done with proper procedures and documentation, ensuring that we actually get some scientific benefit from the experiment.

Here is what the "Idle No More" (an Aboriginal activist) website posted about the situation, as quoted from the Canadian Press, under the title "HUNGRY ABORIGINAL PEOPLE USED IN BUREAUCRATS' EXPERIMENTS".  This title appears also on the CBC website, and many others.

http://www.idlenomore.ca/hungry_aboriginal_people_used_in_bureaucrats_experiments

If they withheld food from half of a group of starving children do see if they would die faster than a control group that got the regular rations, then that was evil by any standard.

If they gave minerals and vitamin supplements unknowingly to half the group, to see if there were any benefits to their health or mental states, without cutting back in any way on the food they were getting already, then the bureacrats and researchers were not evil, they were simply not acting according to modern standards on human research.

From the article above:

"The first experiment began in 1942 on 300 Norway House Cree. Of that group, 125 were selected to receive vitamin supplements which were withheld from the rest.
At the time, researchers calculated the local people were living on less than 1,500 calories a day. Normal, healthy adults generally require at least 2,000."

According to this, all the natives in some communities were basically going hungry, not just the children in residential schools. Instead of providing more food to the communities, the researchers gave selected people vitamin supplements.  If all the natives were hungry, that brings up many other questions about how they were fed, who was responsible for feeding them, and why were they not hunting/fishing/gathering berries, or otherwise using traditional sources of food?  None of that was mentioned in the article, although it seems familiar, just from Canadian and US history, and movies.

Here is another quote:

"One school deliberately held milk rations for two years to less than half the recommended amount to get a 'baseline' reading for when the allowance was increased."

If true, it would surely be a criminal act, even by the loose standards of 1947. But, I notice it does not say the rations were "cut", only "held".  Does that mean it was already normal practice to give half the recommended amount of milk?  Why?  Who set the recommended amount in the first place?

"At another, children were divided into one group that received vitamin, iron and iodine supplements and one that didn't."

Sounds reasonable for 1947.

"One school depressed levels of vitamin B1 to create another baseline before levels were boosted."

Did people know what vitamin B1 was in 1947?  If so how was the level depressed, by withholding food?  Was it in pill form?

"A special enriched flour that couldn't legally be sold elsewhere in Canada under food adulteration laws was used on children at another school."

This actually doesn't sound too evil, as I think we now basically use enriched flour everywhere and think nothing of it. It is your basic white  "Wonder Bread".  Of course if the illegal enriched flour had proven fatal, that would have been a bad thing.

"Many dental services were withdrawn from participating schools during that time. Gum health was an important measuring tool for scientists and they didn't want treatments on children's teeth distorting results."

If true, that is a crime, unless the treatments that were being withheld were also experimental.  In which case it's the opposite of a crime.  The actual treatments that were withheld are not specified.

"They knew from the beginning that the real problem and the cause of malnutrition was underfunding. That was established before the studies even started and when the studies were completed that was still the problem."

Studies in nutrition are not simple, because even when people have enough money and access to food, they can still be malnourished.  You need to have a healthy balanced diet, and not all people understand what a healthy diet is, or want to eat it.  You can be obese and still  suffer from nutritional deficiencies.  You cannot drink Coke and eat potato chips your whole life without serious side effects, not that I am suggesting anyone in 1947 would do that.  But you also cannot easily force people to eat a healthy diet.

Justin Carter: A Psychoanalysis

Which one is just kidding?

Justin Carter, a 19 year old male in Texas, made this comment on the internet:

"Oh yeah, I'm real messed up in the head, I'm going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still, beating hearts"

This was followed by LOL, and JK, which as everyone knows means Laughing out loud and just kidding.

So a Canadian woman spotted this, and alerted authorities in Texas, who put Justin in Jail and he is still there, awaiting trial and in solitary confinement, four months later.

Following some of the discussion on the internet, I notice a trend for left wingers and right wingers to each blame the other for this incarceration.

It starts with Texas, a well known right wing state, and the location of this debacle.  So you might think that this is the typical right wing Texas justice, famous for executions and harshness.  But no, apparently this is in Austin Texas, and the crime is a Federal crime.  Austin is the left wing stronghold of Texas, and of course Obama is president of the Federal government, so it's all his fault.  But actually that is partly a lie too, because the court that set the bail of $500,000 is not a federal court, and is not even in Austin. It is in New Braunfels, Texas. Not only is New Braunfels closer to San Antonio than to Austin, it is a German community like my home town of Kitchener (The Lost Motorcyclist lives in Kitchener, Ontario).  From the New Braunfels web page:

"Willkommen! to a little bit of old Germany smack dab in the middle of the Texas Hill Country. New Braunfels is the kind of old-fashioned town that makes folks feel right at home."

The court that set the bail for Justin, and delayed his trial, and the jailers who put him in solitary confinement, are not directly under federal jurisdiction.  While it is a federal law that has been violated, I'm not so sure Obama or the Lefties take all the responsibility for a law against uttering terrorist threats.

But of course, stupidity does not stop there: check this out, from a blog named "Small dead animals"

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/free-justin-car.html

"The woman who called police about this "threat" should undergo some intense involuntary re-education in recognizing sarcasm and satire. A couple of years of "re-education" would likely be appropriate."  by Loki, July 1, 2013

Well, it seems to me that arresting Justin is only the tip of the iceberg of stupidity.  I mean: An ordinary citizen notifies the police of a threat to shoot kindergarten kids, and the concerned citizen should be locked up for two years? In my opinion, the concerned citizen has really done nothing wrong, and everything right. She is not responsible for any of the 4 month detention or harsh conditions in the jail.  She does not even really understand the Texan judicial system, as she comes from Canada and may not have watched "Thelma and Louise".

Although we cannot prevent any given person (either Justin or Loki) from being stupid, society's response to stupidity should be rational. After investigating Justin Carter, and seeing there was no credible threat, the police should have released him.  Then nobody needs to get their knickers in a twist until Justin actually goes into a school armed to the teeth and kills twenty kids just before killing himself.  And what is the probability of that happening? 1% maybe?  And I base that 1% entirely on the fact that Justin was stupid enough to make that comment, in response to some online friend saying he was crazy.  Otherwise I would say effectively 0%.

Now for Doctor Lost's (me) official psychoanalysis of the situation.  Justin seems to have a style of communicating that does not mesh well with reality.  I don't know the full context of how his crazy conversation got started, but let me guess that Justin said many crazy things online, prompting one of his gaming buddies to comment on the fact that he seemed "messed up in the head".  To which Justin gave his classic answer "Oh yeah, I'm real messed up in the head, I'm going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still, beating hearts".  Now that response indicates a person who has a tendency to answers that make him look even crazier than was originally thought.  If this is Justin's shtick, (i.e. he does it all the time) then what response did the police officers get when they questioned him about his online comment?  I'm guessing Justin was not aware of his own condition, and unknowingly continued with his sarcasm until the authorities finally decided to lock him up.  "Tourett's syndrome" is a disorder where a person cannot help swearing inappropriately.  I imagine there is another as-yet-undiscovered syndrome where a person cannot help getting themselves in deeper trouble with sarcastic comments, I will now name it "The Cousin Vinnie Syndrome" after a movie by the name of "My Cousin Vinnie".  And I think Justin Carter probably has it real bad.

Picture: The guy in the orange wig was not "just kidding" (allegedly).

Is Justin Trudeau Really Flip Flopping on Charity?

Justin Trudeau, new leader of the Liberal Party of Canada has gotten into more trouble with the Conservatives.

Many months ago, Justin Trudeau was paid $20,000 by the Grace Foundation to be a speaker at a fundraiser.  Later on, a letter was sent from someone at the Grace Foundation to ask for the money back. It was not returned, and about a week ago,  the letter to Trudeau was made public by the Prime Minister's Office.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/charity-makes-statement-regarding-justin-trudeau-public-speaking-fee-dispute/article12735221/

The view from a seemingly Liberal slanted website:
http://thecanadianpoliticalscene.blogspot.ca/2013/06/grace-foundation-never-authorized.html

Is the scandal here that Trudeau charged an outlandish amount of money, considering that it was a charity, after all?

Or is it more of a scandal that The Grace Foundation engaged somebody at a mutually agreed amount, then demanded the money be returned, because they are a charity.

Or is the biggest scandal that the Grace Foundation asked an individual for donations, then upon receiving no response, attempted to shame them by publicizing their name?

Incidentally, not all charities are the same, as I have found out over the course of my life.  Some charities really do good work for the most unfortunate people, other totally legitimate, but more self-serving charities are only to fund local projects in wealthy neighbourhoods.

The Grace Foundation is legally a charitable organization, but I consider it more an unpaid auxiliary to the "Church of St. John and St. Stephen Home". Before I start feeling sorry for the residents of that Seniors home, I would like to know what fees they are charged, and who is allowed into that home, and why they are admitted.  Most of the better seniors homes (like this one) are not charitable institutions, and I would guess that many of the Grace Foundation board members volunteer mainly as a way to get priority admittance for their aged parents when the time comes.

I would consider a "real" charity to be something like "Doctors Without Borders", or a soup kitchen.  An example here in Kitchener is "The Working Centre", that helps unemployed people get jobs.

It's not such a bad thing to give money to a real charity, although some people get awfully worked up about giving money to poor people.  But I prefer to at least be given a choice in my charitable donations, and be allowed to do it privately.  I would not appreciate being publicly humiliated by any charity that I decline to donate money to.

The chairman of the board of the Grace Foundation has said he regrets that this issue has been made public, that he did not agree to it, and does not know why the letter was made public without official knowledge of the board.  That is a reasonable response.

Unfortunately, Justin changed his mind later and offered to give back the money to the Grace Foundation. I think that's a bad mistake, but I'm sure he can recover from headlines like the (conservative) London Free Press "Trudeau Flip Flops on Charity".

What the Grace Foundation should do now is ask for a matching donation from the Conservatives.  And ask any overtly conservative board members for a refund of any  expense money they paid them, such as mailing expenses. If the conservatives have millions of dollars to waste on negative TV ad campaigns, surely they could afford to donate a little to charity, especially when donating to charity becomes such a well publicized event.

The End for America is Now in Sight

Finally after six years of back-to-back Obama scandals, I realize the right wing people are not nut jobs.  It looks like they were right all along.

A few days ago, there was a joint press conference with the Prime Minister of Turkey and President Obama of the United States.  During the conference, there was a light drizzle of rain. Obama forced two US Marines to hold umbrellas: one over his own head, and the other over the head of the Turkish state.  To me, this was an insignificant act.  The marines were standing around doing nothing anyway.  It's not like they were busy at the time rescuing the U.S. Ambassador in Benghazi.  No no, they were just standing around listening to a bunch of stupid questions being fielded by Obama and the Turkish guy.  They were probably hoping the rain would intensify enough to call off the whole thing.

But I was wrong.  This was not insignificant. What I did not know, was that no US president had ever asked a Marine to hold an umbrella over his head during a press conference - other than Obama.  And it was not the first time for Obama either.  The linked video clearly shows pictures of various Presidents holding their own umbrellas, and other pictures of Obama getting marines to hold his umbrella.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI_3hLrixOU

Now for the true insult of this seemingly small act.  If you didn't notice yourself, don't be embarrassed.  It means you are probably not from the Southern U.S. Many Canadians, like me, will miss this too.  Here is the clue: Look at the skin colour of the two men.  The one holding the umbrella is white, the one having the umbrella held over him is black. Therein lies the insult to real Americans (i.e. Southerners).

The true American way to do this, and one that would not have raised a single eyebrow south of Cincinnati and East of Waco Texas, would have been for the white guy to be the President of the USA, and the black guy to be the Marine holding the umbrella.

This umbrella thing was Obama's plan all along.  Health Care was a mere diversion. Killing Osama Bin Laden, a smoke screen.  Boosting the Dow Jones from 7,000 to 15,000 in six years was a red herring.  The hidden plan was to humiliate the white race by making them hold umbrellas for black people, thus destroying the real America.  There is no going back. Real Americans will have to reluctantly, and with heavy hearts, begin gearing up for the second Civil War  (or as real Americans prefer to call it:  "the Second War Between the States" or  "Second War for Southern Independence" or  "Second War of Northern Aggression".) And finally, Al Quaida's plan will be complete: America torn apart just like they destroyed the Soviet Union back in 1990.  All their thanks go to Obama.

An outsiders opinion (from Nigeria) http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/350336

Picture: From http://astuteblogger.blogspot.ca/2013/05/obama-umbrellas-and-what-it-all-rev.html

Mike Duffy Discussion on CBC

On the CBC last night I watched Power & Politics with Evan Solomon.  They had a panel discussing the Mike Duffy affair.  In this case, Senator Mike Duffy accepted a gift of $90,000 from the Conservative Prime Minister's Chief of Staff.

In the panel discussion, I thought there was a lot of unwarranted support for Mike Duffy. Maybe they were even handed because the CBC is afraid of losing its government funding.  But in my mind, and the mind of 97% of Canadians, this gift was against the law, which clearly says senators cannot accept gifts.

I do not accept the excuses given.

1.  That the gift came out of the personal pocket of the Chief of Staff makes no difference to the law.

2.  A second argument was that the gift was simply to cover the money that Mike Duffy was forced to repay the government from a previous scandal involving expenses.  This is a red herring.

3.  That Mike Duffy is sick, (possibly dying??) and is trying to protect his estate from a huge debt load.  While of course I have some human sympathy on this, it really should not enter the debate, as Evan Solomon mentioned last night.

4. The rules are confusing.

There is a reason why Senators are not allowed to accept gifts, and that is to protect our government from corruption in office.  I know people try to get around this law all the time, but that makes it even more important to protect this principal of our political system.  Why are we even debating it?  Might as well just end this farce of democracy right now, if that's what we really think.  Luckily, most Canadians are not yet stupid enough to let it go.

Mike Duffy has a questionable history, too.  He was once a journalist, who helped the conservatives get elected a few years ago.  He aired a show that made Liberal leader Stephan Dion look foolish, days before the election.  After Dion lost the election, Duffy was awarded the position of Senator by the Conservative leader Stephen Harper (who won the election).

It seems that Mike Duffy's ethics and principles are just as weak as a senator as they were as a journalist. He never really seemed to understand that this political position was not just a reward for underhanded political hacksterism. A senator in the federal government has certain responsibilities, and is actually governed by a code of ethics, even though I suppose many people treat it as a joke in Canada, where senators are not elected.  But Mike Duffy seems to understand very little of the requirements of his post.  And I believe some of the blame goes back to Stephen Harper, who once promised to eliminate the Senate, but now pads it with ignorant sycophants.


Picture: http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Auditor+general+take+over+senate+probe/7962385/story.html

Jon Stewart Agrees with Fox News About Obama's IRS Scandal

Last night I was watching the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.  Jon Stewart is usually a pro-Obama supporter, although he claims to be neutral.  Last night Jon sided with Fox News against Obama on one (or maybe two) issues.  Mainly, it was the issue of the IRS investigating right wing organizations.  Apparently the Internal Revenue Service in the US is targeting Republican political groups by investigating their tax-exempt status, while letting Democrat (or liberal) groups get through without much scrutiny.

I disagree with Jon Stewart on this.  By the way I also disagree with Fox News, but that almost goes without saying.  And now, since Obama has apologized, and says changes will be made to the IRS, I also disagree with Obama.

The IRS is supposed to investigate organizations seeking tax exempt status.  That is how they discover fraudulent operations claiming tax exempt status.  If you stop them from investigating organizations that have right wing sounding names, you are simply giving a pass to organizations with "Tea-Party" or "Patriot" in their names.

Let's assume there are lots of fraudulent operations in the USA applying for tax exempt status, just for the sake of argument.  Even before this scandal, it would be likely that many of these scams would be targeting gullible right wing fanatics.  That is because gullible right wing fanatics have lots of money, and of course they are gullible.  So the logical thing to do would be to put words like Tea Party, or Patriot in their name.  Just because they are called "Patriot-Tea-Party-something or other",  does not mean these scams are truly right wing politically.  But now that the IRS cannot investigate any new organization that sounds right wing, I think all of these fraud artists will be soon be using right wing sounding names.

The defense of the IRS is that they were actually supporting the political opposition by weeding out fraudulent operators preying on right wing supporters.  The IRS was actually doing the right wing conservatives a service.  But, to be fair, as New Gingrich says, the IRS should at least spend equal time investigating organizations applying for tax-exempt status with  "Terrorist" in their names.

Picture: From http://www.occupycorporatism.com/irs-scandal-unites-patriot-movement-as-no-politician-has-been-able-to/

Killer Domestic Drones, Did Rand Paul Change His Mind?

There is a bit of a debate about the use of drones to kill people.  Over the last ten years, the use of drones has increased, and the technology has moved forward.

Basically, a drone is a remote controlled airplane.  I guess the actual definition continually varies, but to me it means an airplane with a video camera in it that relays the view back to a remote operator.  Apparently the real definition of drones includes non-human non-remote computer controlled aircraft, but I think that is an entirely different thing.  For me, the key thing about drones is that they are using human intelligence.  The controversial use of drones is to assassinate suspected terrorists with missiles fired from the drone, which results in a lot of collateral damage (i.e. probably innocent people killed or maimed in the strikes.)

Recently, the US administration announced that they would expand the use of drones to Americans as well as foreigners, which resulted in a great outcry. Then it was announced that absolutely no Americans would be killed in America.  This targeting of Americans would only be if these people holding American citizenship were overseas engaged in anti-American terrorist plots (or suspected of doing so).

But now we come back to America.  Rand Paul, the libertarian politician and son of Ron Paul, filibustered the use of drones in America. But  after the Boston Marathon bombings, Rand Paul backed down and said that he never opposed using drones in an immediately threatening situation, for example a person coming out of a liquor store, after committing a robbery,  with a gun and fifty dollars.

The Young Turks (Cenk Uygur rant about Rand Paul's about face)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07MH-WhrlK8

Rand Paul (Before Boston bombings)

“No American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court,” 

Rand Paul (after)

“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him,” 

A political blogger commenting on Rand Paul
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/23/rand-paul-faces-blowback-after-new-drone-comments/

How can we ever have an intelligent debate about topics like this when people appear to be willing to shift their position dramatically depending on how they feel on a given day?  I believe this is a dramatic shift in position, although many right wing conservatives do not think it is.  Apparently, for right wingers, it was so obvious drones would and should be used for killing bad guys, that they forgot to mention it.  They are only opposed to drones flying over their outdoor hot tubs.

More questions: Since when is somebody carrying a gun fair game in the USA?  I thought there was this thing about "the right to bear arms"?  I am probably missing something, but when this person comes out of the liquor store with a gun and fifty dollars, how do you know that he committed the crime?  And is he (she) really an immediate threat?  Wouldn't that depend on what kind of gun they were carrying, on where they were pointing it, on whether it was loaded, or if maybe it was a toy gun?  I'm thinking that a person coming out of the liquor store with a gun and $50 is relatively harmless unless you try to stop them.

A domestic police drone would probably not be equipped with Hellfire missiles.  At least I hope not.  Some possible weapons a domestic drone could be equipped with would be smaller guns, rubber bullets, tear gas, a taser, paintball bullets, maybe a net?   A domestic drone only needs to detain, slow down, or track an individual.  A foreign drone  kills mainly because it operates without human police assistance.

Being a Canadian, I don't really understand the USA, but I remember back in the early nineties, in Panama City Beach, Florida, seeing a sign "Drive Thru Liquor and Machine Gun Rental".  Assuming I went in there and rented a machine gun, then the person behind me in line pulled a robbery, I could be killed by a drone on my way out. (according to Rand Paul's scenario.)

Picture: Huffington Post comments on drones replacing police helicopters
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/domestic-drones_n_2854589.html

Trudeau vs. Harper About Bombers

Canada's Federal Liberal Party has a new leader, Justin Trudeau, son of the famous Pierre Trudeau who was Prime minister of Canada during the seventies.

Already, it looks like there is a battle between the present Conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, and Justin Trudeau.

The opening salvo, fired by the Conservatives, was a round of attack ads, taking Justin's words, quoting him as saying "Quebecers are better than the rest of Canadians."*  And the ads continue on to say "Trudeau is in over his head."

Now back to real life, and hours after the bombing of the Boston Marathon, Justin says in a CBC interview, (in part) "we have to look at the root causes".

Was Justin's comment an attack on the Prime Minister?  Whether it was an attack or not, it did draw return fire from the Prime Minister. A few hours later, then Stephen made a statement that people should not be sitting around rationalizing or making excuses for bombers.  All we should do is make sure we have harsh punishments.

And now the ball was in Justin's court.  He could back down and apologise to the Prime Minister. Or he could ignore the jibe.  Or, I guess he could tell the Prime Minister to shut up and mind his own business.  What did Justin do?

Justin said [something like] the Prime Minister should rethink how far he wants to go in politicizing tragedies.

This really got the Conservatives fired up, and there were counter-counter attacks on the CBC program "Power Politics with Evan Solomon".  On that show, the NDP (Now Canada's official opposition party) jumped in on the side of the Conservatives, saying an apology from Justin Trudeau to Stephen Harper would be nice.

This is not over yet.

There is obviously some kind of school yard fight going on.  The new guy has shown his face in the playground, and words get exchanged with Stephen, the kid with the biggest entourage.  Some might call him the bully. So the way you view this altercation will depend on your view of Stephen Harper.  I personally am leaning toward cheering on Justin.  He has certainly shown willingness to stand up for himself.  But can he also be disciplined and in control of his emotions?  In my opinion, the worst he could do would be to apologise for that simple statement.  Because it is actually true that we need to look at what might be motivating these psychopaths.  Yes, you heard that right.  Even psychopaths have some kind of motivation.  And it is possible to know what it is, and we need need to know what it is. Harsh punishments cannot be the only answer.  A Liberal must not apologise for supporting a scientific approach.


* P.S. Is it true that A. Quebecers are better than the rest of Canadians? B. Justin really said that?

As I was born in Quebec I am inclined to agree with A. although it may not be a good thing for a politician to say publicly.  But it seems that for B. the answer is no, that is not what Justin said.  The conservatives edited a sentence in order to isolate those words.  I think that tells you a lot more about the tactics of Conservatives than it does about Justin Trudeau.

Picture: Photoshop job by "The Lost Motorcyclist"

The Royal Bank Foreign Worker Project Goes Too Far

There is a story creating some concern in Canada, about our biggest bank, the Royal Bank of Canada, hiring foreign workers to replace Canadian workers.  All by itself, this would not be enough to cause outrage, as we have been doing this for years. But now there is a combination of circumstances that could make this "the straw that broke the camel's back".

- Canadians are aware that good jobs have been shipped overseas for many years: Computer jobs, phone answering jobs, manufacturing jobs. I don't know how many jobs have gone overseas, but I am aware of many local industries and offices that have simply closed down.  I think it is widespread enough to harm our economy, if not now, sometime in the future.  We know jobs pay a lot lower wages overseas than in Canada, and I guess we understand why.

- Canadians may not be aware that many jobs even in Canada are filled by foreign workers on temporary visas.  Over 100,000 in 2001 growing to over 300,000 in 2012.  It used to make sense, because these are mostly jobs we don't care for such as fruit picking.  They are supposed to pay Canadian wages, though really it's not, because Canadians apparently cannot afford to work for those wages any more.

- There are also high tech jobs, or skilled jobs that not enough Canadians are trained for.  I personally know at least one person who was recruited overseas to work in Canada in such a job.  I think there is a need for a limited amount of this type of recruiting.  These jobs are also supposed to pay Canadian wages.

But this is just too much: Unskilled foreign workers on temporary visas, replacing Canadian workers, at a lower salary, in Canada, recruited to do a job that some Canadians have invested their own time and money at University and college to qualify for.  I don't care if it's a mistake, or a loophole, or an accident, or any other excuse. If this continues, even the CEO's job may be outsourced.  After all, it would improve the corporation profits by $10,000,000 per year (the CEO salary, minus whatever we have to pay the replacement on a temporary CEO work visa).  The resulting executive decisions couldn't be any more short sighted.

I am somewhat at fault myself, as a shareholder in the Royal Bank.  And so the only decent thing to do is begin divesting shares in favour of some company that does not outsource its jobs, if there are any left.

Already, we have a case in Canada going before the court, where Chinese temporary workers were hired by a Chinese mining company to work in a mine in Canada.  Once again, it was a combination of circumstances.  As I understand it, the Chinese company bought mining rights in Canada.  The Canadian government assumed that there would be jobs for Canadians in the deal.  The Chinese company put out help wanted ads, but no Canadian miners qualified, so they were forced to bring in Chinese workers on "temporary" work visas.  Is appears that one of the requirements listed for the job was fluency in speaking Mandarin.

I looked up some of the facts in the Globe and Mail article here:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/jobs/ottawa-pushes-for-answers-as-uproar-over-rbc-outsourcing-gains-volume/article10870961/

Picture: From a foreign worker application support website
http://www.routleylaw.com/immigration-legal-services-overview/

Are You Smarter Than a Fox Newscaster?

I will confess that I don't very much like Howard Stern.  Howard accuses late-night comedian Jay Leno of stealing his ideas, but let's look at the ones mentioned in the Fox News session with host Megyn Kelly.  Megyn puts on two "experts" who hate Jay Leno to discuss the case. But none that like him, that is not fair.  But then I guess that Fox's motto "Fair and Balanced" is beyond a joke, it is mocking the entire concept of fairness.  Not too surprising, the verdict is that Leno is a swine, but that unfortunately Howard does not have a good legal case due to technicalities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ntWGpI61XE

In the above Fox News clip, Jay is accused of taking these ideas from Howard Stern:  The Jaywalking bit, the Chicken predicting NFL games, "Are you smarter than a fifth grader", and the "Earn your plugs" idea.  Furthermore, Jay Leno hired one of Howard Stern's characters "Stuttering John" away from him.

I'm going to just go over the basics here of copyright, one is that you need to actually copyright an idea to protect it, which Howard didn't do.  Second, you have to actually come up with the idea first, which Howard also failed to prove (as far as I know, and this may be linked to point one, failing to get copyright).  Third, the idea must be implemented, or executed in the same way, which I don't think is true either.

I should explain that there is a big difference between Jay Leno's type of humour and Howard Stern's.  Jay Leno generally takes the high road, and when I watch his show I don't get the idea Jay is mocking and humiliating people for laughs (although some might see it like that).  On the other hand, Howard Stern's stock in trade is shame and degradation.  I don't happen to like that type of humour, so I might as well make that clear again.  For one relevant example, take "Stuttering John".  Stuttering John was basically a punching bag hired by Howard Stern.  He was ridiculed, first for stuttering (hence the nickname), but eventually also for the way he farted, burped, and smelled.  Also how he took dumps, and how he urinated. You can catch a sample from Howard Stern's show here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFwrOGTyOfY

Stern's original idea for Stuttering John was to get a stutterer to ask embarrassing questions of celebrities, who would be too polite to snub a stutterer.  Later, Stuttering John was driven off the Stern show by nasty comments from Howard.  To some people, Stuttering John  was funny, and Jay Leno had reportedly planned to use John the same way as Howard Stern did, but in a less abrasive way.  In all the time I watched the Jay Leno show with John Melendez, he was never referred to as "Stuttering John" (by anyone) and I never knew he stuttered until I saw some bits on Howard Stern.  That helps illustrate the difference between Jay Leno's brand of humour and Howard Stern's.

The hiring of John Melendez was the beginning of the feud between Howard Stern and Jay Leno, and honestly I have never heard Jay Leno criticise Howard Stern, but Howard has been lambasting Jay heavily since then.  That again shows the difference between the two,  Howard is well known for hateful comments, Jay rarely says anything bad about anyone.

Now let's look at Jaywalking.  In this bit, Jay walks down the streets of Los Angeles and interviews ordinary Americans, or tourists.  He asks questions about sports, geography, current events.  This does not really sound like something Howard Stern might have invented, and indeed Howard Stern's bit was all about asking homeless people simple questions and betting on the result. The idea of interviewing people on the street is not original, but Jay's idea is not about making fun of the homeless, but about making fun of the mass culture in America, that places such a low value on education.  In one segment, Jay interviews someone who was claiming that he "staged" the dumb answers in "Jaywalking", so to prove her wrong, he simply asked her a few questions, and amazingly enough, her answers seemed to prove Jay's point.

To me there is a huge difference between the tone of Jay's humour, and Howard Stern's.  And honestly, is there any original funny bit that cannot be traced to some earlier idea?  Although I never saw Jay do the chicken bit, animals predicting the future is not all that original.  It's really what you make of it.

Jay does a weekly bit called "Headlines" that I think is funny, he reads newspaper headlines with mistakes or double meanings.  But that bit is only funny because of what Jay does and says while reading them.  Without Jay's personality, the headlines are not funny at all.  (I tried watching the bit once with the sound turned off.  I did not laugh.)

"Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader", as far as I know, was never used by Jay Leno.  It was taken and made famous by Jeff Foxworthy, on the FOX TV network.  So if anybody stole it, it was FOX.  Megyn Kelly, an employee of Fox, accuses Jay of ripping off "Smarter than a Fifth Grader" at 0:50 in the first video. And just when I thought Fox News could go no lower. Who watches Fox News?  I think we all know - it's the people interviewed in "Jaywalking".

In one final clip, here is Megyn Kelly, on the Howard Stern Show, talking about breasts and penises.  Just to show once again the difference again in the target audience, subject matter and type of humour.  I think Megyn, and probably most of the other Fox News People, "get" Howard Stern's humour better than she gets Jay Leno.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IML_UGhXz2Q

Anne of Green Gables Goes Blonde, Press goes Wild

Controversial cover

Tess Benger

Yesterday I was looking up places to visit in PEI, because Mary Ann and I would like to go there by motorcycle one day, and her sister has a cottage on the island.  So I started by looking up Mike Duffy's** address, and I thought we could pop in and say hello.  And since he lives in Cavendish, just a stone's throw from "Green Gables", where Anne of Green Gables lived, I put a pushpin on that location too.

But then, later that night a story broke (actually two stories), one about Mike Duffy not actually living in PEI, and the other about Anne of Green Gables being turned into a trollop.

I believe there may be something to the Mike Duffy Story, but a minimum amount of Googling indicates to me that the Anne of Green Gables story is the usual bu**sh** that comes through in the news all the time without any fact checking.

This is how Anne's story was presented in the press.  A new edition of the book Anne of Green Gables" is coming out, but the girl on the cover looks like a blonde sexpot instead of our impish red-haired, skinny and pigtailed 10-year old Anne.  As one commenter put it "The book is Anne of Green Gables, not Anne Does Green Gables".  And there were thousands of other similar comments.

Megan Follows as Anne

But here is what I found out.  The book is published in "Createspace", a website where all you need is an email ID to create a book.  Usually, these books are made with your own writing, not the writings of others, but these days, who writes their own stuff any more?  (Well, I do, and I'm The Lost Motorcyclist, and if you are reading this in another blog, it means my work has been stolen.  Once again.)  But I digress, let's get back to Anne of Green Gables.  The book Anne of Green Gables has been in the public domain for many years, and so apparently anybody can copy all the words off the internet, then paste them into their "own" book, slap on a cover page using the free graphic tools provided by Createspace.  Then wait for somebody to buy a copy.

So, there is no "Publishing Company" involved in the traditional sense.  More likely one person.  And there is no run of books to be printed, as it is all "print on demand".  There are no up front royalties paid, no advances, no expense accounts.

The only worry is that the image of Anne and Green Gables still belongs to the heirs of the author.

But who is the girl on the new cover?  Was she Googled and copied from some farm girl porn site?  I think she actually looks a lot like the actress playing Anne in the latest production of Anne of Green Gables, Tess Benger.  To me they look about the same.  So really the only heinous crime involved was not putting on Tess Benger's fake red wig with pigtails, and the possibly sexy pose.  Or maybe people should get worked up about choosing Tess Benger for the role in the first place.

Pictures: One is Megan Follows, one of the most well known actresses to play Anne Shirley.  Another is Tess Benger.  And the third is the "new edition" of the book with the controversial cover, that I think might be Tess Benger.

** Mike Duffy: Famous Canadian news commentator turned senator, currently mired in a controversy about whether or not he lives in P.E.I., the province he is supposed to represent.  He is not related to me in any way.

Put on Your Hip Waders, the Gun Debate is Back

As the gun debate heats up again, I remain convinced that it is one of the most illogical debates I have ever heard.  It makes about as much sense as debating witchcraft or runaway Toyotas  (actually those of two of my favourite topics.)

This morning I read the story of a US Navy Seal gunned down on a shooting range.  I am pretty sure that the NRA will not be able to use the old argument that it happened because "there were not enough guns at the range" and/or that "more guns are needed to protect people at the shooting range".  I wait to hear what their response will be.

But the other story is Sarah McKinley, an 18 year old mother living alone with her baby, who shot and killed knife-wielding intruder Justin Martin.  This story is of course the ideal one to support the NRA's position that assault weapons should be allowed, because it would have made Sarah McKinley even safer than just using a 12 gauge shotgun.  Does their position make any logical sense?  Of course it does if

1. You assume Sarah McKinley will do a better job killing the intruder with an assault rifle than with a shotgun.  (hint, he's dead.  He can't get any deader)  I'm sorry, I didn't present the NRA's side fairly.  They actually said, not that she would kill him deader, but that she would have more chances to kill him if she missed, and that she would be braver with a scarier looking gun, and that Justin Martin would more likely have been scared away by a scarier looking gun.  I don't buy that argument either, because it really does not make a lot of sense to me.

2. The biggest, most illogical assumption is one that I do not see mentioned anywhere. It is the assumption that only Sarah McKinley will have access to buy and carry an assault rifle, but Justin Martin will not be able to do so.  Nowhere in the NRA manifesto does it say that only mothers with babies can have scary guns, and not the men breaking in.  In fact, just the opposite is true.  They want everyone to have access to scary guns, and they are not supportive even of background checks.

Now my question is, was it Obama who took away Justin Martin's gun?  Justin apparently carried only a 12 inch hunting knife.  The point of this story is relevant to the issue of gun control.  In fact, I might even call it the central issue of gun control.  The NRA wants to make it possible for the Justin Martins of the world to have more guns, and the proposed NRA solution is to also give scarier guns to defenseless women.  If that is going to make the women safer, then please refer to the Navy Seal story this morning.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/ex-navy-seal-sniper-author-killed-at-texas-gun-range-reports-1.1141037

http://alysonmiers.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/mr-stewart-you-are-under-arrest-for-letting-your-friend-be-a-stalker-a-junkie-and-an-idiot/

Picture: Another kitten picture. I am using kitten pictures because they are cute.  I got this off the internet, a great source of kitten pictures, and some other stuff too.

Ezra Levant Mentioned in MacLean's Magazine

The only reason I read MacLean's is to distract me from the pain of a dentist visit.  So I was at the dentist .. again .. and the latest MacLean's was there, with an article about Ezra Levant. The perfect anesthetic before going to the dentist chair.

"Ezra Levant: Love him or hate him, he keeps winning" A profile of the right-wing gadfly who loves to offend by Jonathon Gatehouse on Saturday, January 12

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/01/12/going-on-the-offensive/


I found one quote in the article particularly relevant, where Ezra Levant blamed the Jews for Canada's human rights laws and here it is:

"The people to blame for the “illiberal and un-Canadian” human rights laws and tribunals he’s been crusading against for the past seven years are well-represented in the theatre. 'It came from us. I mean the Jews, my friends.'"

Well well, apparently Ezra was asleep during History class, which is especially annoying to me, as an ex-History teacher.  So now I have to fill him in on what he missed.  Here goes.

It was just after WW2, when the Allies found concentration camps full of dead and starving Jews.  In the final tally, about 6 million Jews had been killed in what we called the "Holocaust".  The horrified allies tried to analyse what happened to result in this tragic outcome, and concluded at the time that it was years of anti-Jewish propaganda that had built to a fever pitch in the war, and had precipitated this great tragedy, and made it possible for it to happen.  I don't have the time or space to go into every cultural and sociological factor here, but that's what people in Canada, and the other allied countries generally thought back in the fifties.  So, because nobody wanted another world war, many things were done to try and avert the recurrence of such a situation.  Things like the establishment of the UN, the generous financial aid provided to the losers (Germany and Japan specifically), and the prevention of any further campaigns of propaganda against helpless minorities.  And this means not just Jews, but any minorities.  We did not want this to happen ever again, to anyone.  So every country tried to pass some kind of legislation to protect minorities from genocide, including Canada.  That's why we have the Canadian Human Rights Act.

So in a way, Ezra was right. It was because of the Jews that we have the Human Rights Act in Canada.  Ironically, he finds that it is very restrictive in his campaign to demonize Arabs in the way that Hitler demonized the Jews.  Well, sorry for your bad luck Ezra, but anyone who was awake during history class already knows that the Human rights stuff came about because of the Jews who died in the Holocaust, and was also supported after the war by Canadian Jews.

By the way, recent Right wing emails have tried to persuade us that it was not propaganda that enabled the holocaust.  The two main right wing theories regarding the origin of the holocaust are currently

It was gun control.  If the Jews had guns the holocaust would never have happened.  (FYI, France had guns, they surrendered.  Russia had guns, they lost 8 million people fighting the Nazi invasion, Britain had guns, they retreated to their island and got heavily bombed. The Jews in Warsaw had guns, but the Nazis simply leveled their ghetto with artillery and tanks.  I don't think this argument stands up to much scrutiny.)

It was Darwin's Theory of Evolution.  Apparently Hitler decided that Darwin's theory of evolution meant that he had to kill all the Jews before they became a new species or something.  Maybe I misunderstood that argument.  Anyhow it's quite weak, compared to the many hundreds of years of anti-Jewish religious hatred in Europe.  Here is a quote from Martin Luther, the German who started the protestant reformation. (not the black guy who was killed in the Civil Rights movement).

From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism#On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies

In 1543 Luther published On the Jews and Their Lies in which he says that the Jews are a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth."[13] They are full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine."[14] The synagogue was a "defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut ..."[15] He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness,[16] afforded no legal protection,[17] and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[18] He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them".[19]

I don't think Charles Darwin said anything as bad as that.  Actually, some people think Darwin was a Jew.  That mistake has never been made with Luther. Or Hitler.

Benghazigate: Coverup or Statesmanship?

I was just reading through Canada's National Post on the subject of General Petraeus and his remarks today on the Benghazi situation.

First I will rant about the headline of the National Post story contradicting the text, with the headline as usual leaning to the right and the text (and presumably the more accurate and fact-checked) text of the story skewing to the left.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/16/david-petraeus-says-he-believed-terrorists-behind-libya-attack-all-along-but-talking-points-removed-by-other-agencies/

The headline was

"David Petraeus says he believed terrorists behind Libya attack all along as pressure mounts on Obama’s version"

The text contains this

"Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said Petraeus disputed Republican suggestions that the White House misled the public on what led to the violence in the midst of President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign.
“There was an interagency process to draft it, not a political process,” Schiff said after the hearing. “They came up with the best assessment without compromising classified information or source or methods. So changes were made to protect classified information.
“The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda,” Schiff said. “He completely debunked that idea.”
Schiff said Petraeus said Rice’s comments in the television interviews “reflected the best intelligence at the time that could be released publicly.”

 So the headline suggests that Petraeus testimony conflicts with the President's version.  But according to an eyewitness (I'm taking this from the text of the story), Petraeus backed up the President's version as "the best intelligence at the time that could be released publicly.”

Once again, the title composer at the  National Post seems to have a right wing agenda.  But I suppose I should be thankful that the text itself is not pure fabrication, like Fox News in the U.S.  I'm thinking the real title, before the composer redid it, might be seen by reading the computer filename in the internet link (which I suppose the title composers forgot to edit: )

"david petraeus says he believed terrorists behind libya attack all along but talking points removed by other agencies"

Next, I made the mistake of reading some of the comments. Woo-wee!  Is it just me or is the tone of the comment section going to h-e-double hockey sticks in a handbasket?  It is quite clear that people are divided along party lines.  Some people suggest that, had they been President, they would have sent in a large enough contingent of Marines to protect the Ambassador and all the people in the the US embassy.  And furthermore they suggest that Obama failed to do this through sheer laziness, and then lied about his incompetence and dereliction of duty so that he could get re-elected, while 52% of the American public are simply too stupid to realize they have been duped by the mainstream media, and voted for incompetent Obama again thereby completing the destruction of America so desired by people with their heads up their asses.

The pro-Obama side are inclined to give Obama a break for the following reasons: 1. You cannot send marines into a sovereign country to kill people without an invitation, or you risk war, or at least a backlash that could end up killing more Americans and tipping the political balance to the anti-American side.  2. This was not in the embassy.  The consulate, unlike the embassy, is not technically U.S. territory  3. S-h-double hockey sticks happens.  4. The president is not obligated to keep inbred hillbillies informed of every nuance of foreign affairs. 5. Sometimes, diplomacy requires you to keep your thoughts to yourself until the right time.

I am not really sure why Petraeus is such an important witness anyway? He, like Obama, was not on the scene.  Both were in Washington getting their information through the usual channels.  He is not even really a General any more, as head of the CIA. Notice he is wearing a business suit now?

In the final analysis, this difference of opinion shows how much the entire world needed Obama to win the 2012 election.  To keep out the "Shoot first and ask questions later" crowd for at least four more years.  Just to give us some rest before the pro-war faction gets their next turn.

Romney is More of a Bullshitter than Obama

Did I hear correctly?  Apparently, Barack Obama called Mitt Romney a bullshitter. And is it true? I mean is Mitt Romney really a bullshitter, not a truthful Mormon missionary?  Mormon missionaries never tell a lie, and never use a word stronger than "H-E-double hockey sticks".

Well, Obama didn't directly call Mitt Romney a liar to his face.

Actually, Barack Obama said that children have good instincts for calling the other guy a bullshitter. And then to put it in context, he made that statement after a small child had expressed support for Obama.  Which if you think about it a bit, means Romney has just been called a bullshitter by Obama.

Well, I think it really is bullshit when Romney keeps saying "I know how the economy works".  While it may not be a lie, it is certainly bullshit.  Nobody really knows how the economy works, it is too complicated. Romney does not know for sure that his extremist economic theories are right, and after those theories set the stage for the 2008 collapse, why does he want to continue with them?  Oh yes, I just remembered: those theories involve more tax cuts for the wealthy.

More bullshit when Romney says he saved the 2002 Winter Olympics.  That's because Romney "saved" the Olympics with government funding.  And Romney is running on a platform that is opposed to government funding.  It was the taxpayers who really saved the Olympics, and they should be given some credit.  Similarly, Obama did not really save GM and Chrysler, but he did fight for funding to get them restarted, which Romney would not have done.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/31/1114110/-Romney-did-NOT-save-2002-Olympics-Lost-his-cool-Likely-breached-his-contract-Profiteered


Barack Obama is doing a little bullshitting on his own.  He is bullshitting about children having good instincts about liars.  Apparently there have been studies done, indicating children are easily fooled by bullshitters.  Also Obama once called himself "as patriotic as anybody" which is plainly a lie, as he didn't wear a US flag on his lapel and didn't put his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance.  If you want to see hundreds, if not thousands of other lies by Barack Obama, consult Google. (55,900,000 hits, including this one)

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/

But two places Obama did not lie, was saying that Romney opposed the auto company bailout, and Romney opposed going after Bin Laden in Pakistan.  Obama succeeded in both, and now Romney is trying to take credit, which is my definition of a classic, if not pathological, bullshitter.

Picture: I made it with "The Gimp" a Linux photo editing program like Photoshop.

Translation: The Mormon word for bullshitter is "bu -double hockey sticks- shitter", in case that helps.

Making Racism Part of the Presidential Debate

It seems like a lot more than usual is riding on the presidential debates between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.  Before the first debate, we were told that the debates historically did not affect the outcome of the election.  But after the first debate, where Obama had a weak performance, the polls showed that the lead in the popular vote had changed hands.  It went from an almost insurmountable lead by Barack Obama, to a small lead by Mitt Romney. So for the second debate, Obama needed to perform better or possibly lose the election.

When the pundits and experts analyze the debates, it seems to me that they pay a lot of attention to the style, and very little to the substance.  This does not make much sense to me.  As a teacher, when marking essay questions, for example, I would first of all look for facts that show the student knows what they are talking about.  I would pay much less attention to style - e.g. handwriting neatness, spelling, grammar (Unless it was a course in handwriting spelling or grammar of course.)  And I would try to not be influenced by racism or prejudice against certain a students. (Yes some students are way more likeable than others, in case you were wondering).  And most of all, I would be looking for B.S.  Here is an example.  "For ten marks, write a one page essay about how you would improve the US economy."  One students writes "I understand the US economy, so obviously I would know many ways to fix it". And then proceeds to fill the rest of the page with the same thought stated over and over.  That would fetch him or her a zero regardless of neat penmanship.  If another student goes ahead and lists ten different points, that all seem perfectly valid possible actions to take that might improve the economy, and correspond what was discussed in class, even though I may not agree with them personally, I would probably give a 10/10.

Apparently in Presidential debates, style matters more than substance, especially this time.  I wonder why?  One answer I can think of, is that people are looking for someone they can trust to lead the country into prosperity.  Since nobody really knows how to fix the economy, the substance is unimportant.  The important thing is: Do you trust this person to make the right decisions, do you think his entire world view is basically right, is he a deluded stooge who people will not respect?  Is he or she a real leader who can get things done?

Unfortunately, if we are going to start valuing style over substance, it also means that prejudice takes hold, and in a country like the USA, which has a history of racism right up to present day, that means Barack Obama has a  handicap in the election.  But this handicap is reinforced by pundits who take up a lot of space arguing about who has better style, instead of doing some much needed fact checking.  Also the Republicans insist they are "Not going to be dictated to by fact checkers".  If style is valued over substance, another casualty is the truth.

This is what I see in the first debate, if style is the only standard.  Debate one: Stereotypical wealthy white man yelling at black man about what a bad job he did.  Black man avoiding eye contact and saying "yes massa". Nobody questions the truth of what the massa says, or his right to say it. Apparently this style resonated very strongly with some parts of America, and immediately after the debate, the polls indicated Romney (the white guy) had wiped out Obama's lead in the popular polls.

Now what do I see in the second debate?  The black guy is not going to take any more crap, and basically says "You are lying."  To which the white guy stares him in the face and says "You dare to question me, boy?  For this you will be punished."  Then the moderator jumps in and says "Well basically he is right." And then all the white supremacists go crazy.  That is my summary of the style of the second debate.

If you would like to watch it again, in this light and see if it makes sense, here is the debate video - fast forward to one hour and 13 minutes, for the 2 minute part part where Romney tells Barack Obama how bad he was for not calling the attack terrorism right away. Obama says, but I did call it terrorism right away, and Romney flashes his eyes about being challenged on a fact, then the moderator jumps in "But Obama is right".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEpCrcMF5Ps   (The second debate)

Then read about the attitude displayed by Mitt Romney's son, about this "President" essentially calling his father a liar.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9617247/Tagg-Romney-wanted-to-take-swing-at-Obama.html

In the old south, if a white gentleman made a statement like "On September 12th in the Rose Garden, I said it was terrorism", and another white gentleman said "No you did not", the rest of the conversation would go like this: "Sir, are you calling me a LIAH?"  second southern gentleman. "That I am, sir."  first gentleman "Bring your duelling pistols and your attendant tomorrow at dawn.  Good day.".

Picture: Romney's best "You dare to speak back to me, boy?" face.  Style over substance.

Stephanie Cutter Wades into the Consular Attack Debate

Last month, there was an attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed the US ambassador and several other people.  This attack is now becoming part of the Republican campaign to win the US presidential elections.  Because making a political football of this attack seems like a strange tactic, I decided to investigate.

It seems strange to me that this attack would become a campaign issue.  How is President Obama responsible for the death of the ambassador?  The attack took place in Libya, where President Obama has little capacity to guarantee the safety of anyone.  Of course, the Ambassador himself would have been guarded, and would try to stay safe, but security is a gamble in any war zone.  I will need to research the Republican arguments to find out why they think Obama is to blame for the attack, and why Obama deserves to lose the election because of it.

I read this web page, which is a right wingers point of view, I don't really have time to read all of them.  So I'll assume this is representative.  It is at Townhall.com, by Guy Benson, political editor.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/10/02/whoa_obama_administration_denied_repeated_requests_for_increased_security_in_benghazi

The main thrust of this is that Ambassador Stevens has made repeated requests to the white house for more help, which were denied, leading to his death.

How are we to interpret this?  Well, for one thing there is no documentation at this point saying what the requests were, who they were made to.  Was he requesting a transfer out of the danger zone? A request for more money to hire local guards?  Was he requesting a US military presence in Libya?  Not likely, as the entire Libyan operation was being done without an overt US military invasion.

Here is the statement on this by Guy

"More security for US interests would have meant more US forces in Libya -- which could be perceived as escalating a new war of Obama's doing.  Couldn't have that politically, so we proceeded with an exceedingly "light footprint," to a lethal fault." - Guy Benson

I guess this brings us the the essential point - all bullshit aside.

The Republicans want US soldiers on the ground in Libya, and they think that will make everyone safer, including the US ambassador. The Democrats do not want the Libyans to think that the USA is invading their country.  That is the basic difference between the two political points of view.  One is to invade the foreign country, the other is to not invade, but to try to manage with diplomacy and intelligence gathering.

Which approach to foreign war is better? I believe this is a point where we separate right wingers from liberals in foreign policy.  My own opinion is that Obama has done a remarkably good job in foreign policy, even though he has the right wing extremists hampering his every move.  But then, I thought the war in Iraq was also a mistake, and we could actually live in a safer (and wealthier) world if it had never happened.  The only country to benefit dramatically from that Iraq war fiasco was Iran, a sworn enemy to Saddam Hussein.  Anyway, that's just my opinion, we'll never know.

Recently the momentum in the presidential election race has apparently been on the Republican side.  The best news for the Democrats recently was Joe Biden's vigorous defence in the Vice Presidential Debates (Laughing aside).  And one other bit of good news, a new hero emerging from the Democrats ranks, Stephanie Cutter.

Here is Stephanie Cutter being attacked by right wingers

http://conservativewatchnews.org/?p=29844

Here is why Stephanie Cutter is being attacked: this video (below) where she accused the Republicans of making a campaign issue out of the attack in Benghazi.  Her accusation has resulted in a storm of protests from Republicans demanding her resignation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrWPUlbKcAE

Free Speech that Helps Terrorists

So here we come to the latest free speech argument, the anti Moslem movie called "Innocence of Muslims" that has apparently provoked a storm of violence in the Muslim world, and resulted in the death of the US ambassador to Libya.  It is not really clear in my mind, who made this movie, but it seems very clear that the movie is ideally suited to ruffling the feathers of  Muslims.  As far as I can see, the movie has no other value, as it us unfunny, inaccurate, and uninteresting.

One thing that no one else seems to be willing to mention about the movie "Innocence of Muslims":  Was it made for the specific purpose of helping Al Quaida?  The reason I ask, is because it has no other useful purpose due to its low quality and crudeness.  And if its only purpose is to promote terrorism, couldn't we start by investigating the background of the people who made the movie, to find out if they are secret Al Quaida sympathisers?  I'm not in favour of torture, but with a little waterboarding you could probably make the director confess to being a member of an Al Quaida sleeper cell, then record his confession and play it on TV.*  That should quell the violence and rioting a little.

But now let's take a closer look at the free speech issue, which is used to defend the movie. I believe free speech is becoming one of the right wing conservatives favourite values.  Why do they favour free speech, and why do liberals seemingly oppose free speech?  Well, first of all I don't think liberals oppose free speech.  But liberals take a dim view of racist propaganda that encourages violence against women and minorities.  Actually, everybody regardless of their political persuasion hates people who shout fire in a crowded theatre, (unless there really is a fire).  So liberals are actually in favour of free speech, but don't really know how to handle intolerant, racist, and violent opinions of others.  Conservatives do not really believe in free speech, and use the current tolerant social climate favouring free speech to push boundaries, and by so doing, prove free speech does not really work.

Here are some ways to push the boundaries on free speech.  Phone in a bomb threat to an airport, and call it free speech. Call for the extermination of some minority group, then claim you were exercising free speech.  Write articles encouraging men to beat their wives.  Speak out about the right to lynch Negroes.  Set up a TV station that knowingly broadcasts slanderous, false, and misleading information every day, and fight the lawsuits with the "Freedom of speech" defense.  Use the free speech argument to allow unlimited money to be used in political campaigns.

One reason why conservatives are so much more vocal about free speech than liberals, is because conservative run afoul of the hate laws more frequently.  Conservative rhetoric against muslims, abortionists, and homosexuals tends to draw fire from human rights groups, from anti-racist organizations.  Their main defence is their right to "Free speech".

Liberals understand free speech, so they do not generally abuse it.

* Is this sentence protected under the free speech principle?  If not, I was only kidding, of course.

Picture from the movie and from this blog: http://reynaelena.com/2012/09/17/innocence-of-muslims-and-the-freedom-of-expression/