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.

Who Owned More Slaves, Grant or Lee?

The answer to the well known question about General Grant, which is "Who is buried in Grant's Tomb", is Grant. That question was more like a joke or a riddle than a real historical question.  But there is a real historical question: "Did General Grant own slaves?"  This is a very interesting question, given that Grant was the top General fighting for the Union in the US civil war, and that many people argue whether or not the war was mainly about slavery.  (and I assume everyone knows the Union was the side allegedly opposed to slavery)

The problem with trying to research questions like this is that there is no one source of "truth" in the U.S.A. (or maybe any country, but the distinction is really obvious in America)  So you may find in one book, that Grant did own slaves, thus proving that the Civil war was NOT about slavery.  And you may also come across this quote from Robert E. Lee, the top general of the Southern Confederate states (the ones who allegedly supported slavery)

"There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil." Robert E. Lee December 27, 1856

That quote, along with Grant's ownership of slaves seems to prove that the war  was not really about slavery.

But hold on just a minute.  If you are to learn anything about the "truth" it is that truth can be manipulated.

By doing some further research, you will find out that Grant bought a slave and set him free.  Does that mean that Grant "owned" slaves?  Of course it does.  From the moment a slave is bought, you own him until the moment you officially set him free, which will take at least a few days, or so I imagine.  It's true, Grant owned slaves.  Or one slave, anyway.  And you will also find out that this slave helped Grant build a log cabin, before being set free.  And that later on Grant hired him again on salary as a free man.  And you will also find out that Grant's wife inherited slaves, and that Grant did not set them free until the end of the war. From there you can dig deeper and deeper and never find the truth.

On the other hand, you can research Robert E. Lee's statement about slavery ("as an institution")  being evil.  And then find out that Lee had slaves and whipped them, and sold their children to break up the family units.  And that although Lee knew that slavery was evil, he also "knew" it was ordained by God, and God would forgive the evil (but necessary) deeds of the slave owners.  And that Lee hated abolitionists a lot more than he hated whipping his slave women.  And again the further you dig, the harder it becomes to root out the truth.

For every argument there is a counter argument.  For every interpretation, there is another interpretation.

Be careful when seeking the truth, it's easy to get lost and never find your way home.

REFERENCES

The Book on Amazon  "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" claims Grant owned slaves.
http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-American-History/dp/B006J3VA60

Book Review of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" by right wing Christians
http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/review-the-politically-incorrect-guide-to-american-history/

Wikipedia article on Grant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant#Historical_reputation

Another bash at Grant vs Lee, with lots of interesting comments at the end.
http://www.american-presidents.org/2007/02/grant-was-slave-owner.html

General Lee's views on slavery in a letter (The whole letter is on this page, not just a cherry picked quote)
http://www.civilwarhome.com/leepierce.htm

Picture: The house built by Grant and his slave from this page.  http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/94503889/

Social Consequences of the Theory of Evolution

There will be gradual changes to the broader civilization as we move away from the religious ideas of biblical Creationism and toward scientific ideas of Evolution.

The Bible has a story of creation that you can believe literally, or allegorically.  Either way it has the power to influence our behaviour. To begin with, it tells us that Men are the dominant sex, and that women were an afterthought, taken from man.  Also, man was created by God in the image of God, once again giving us the idea that men are more important than women.

Another aspect of the creation story is that Man is different from all other animals. In the the story of creation, only man was made in the image of God.  All the other creatures were crafted to look different from God. We are also to understand that Man's morality comes from God, as told in the story of Adam and Eve.  Furthermore we are told that man actually has no innate morality, and is born a natural sinner who needs to obey God, or will suffer punishment.

There are a few other ramifications to this religious story.  It becomes easy to believe that God prefers men to women, and it is also a small step further to believe that one type of man is preferred over other types of men. For example, white men over black men.*   And there is also a very strong support that whoever believes in the "true" Biblical account has the support of God, and anyone of a different faith should be converted or enslaved or killed.

* Although it is not specifically stated in the Bible, white people seem to believe that God is also white.  I can't really prove that of course, but just how many movies, paintings, drawings, have to be made before it's quite clear?

Now what happens to a civilization that is based on such a story of creation, when it finds out that humans were not directly created by God?  That maybe we are not so different from the animals.  Does it mean that now we have no morals any more?  That there is no punishment for being bad?  That our culture and race have no claim to a god-given superiority over any other culture, race, or religion?  That we can't even insist that men are superior to women?

Some people, without fear of a magical all-seeing being overhead, may get a little (or a lot) crazy.  For the vast majority of people, though, I think we will gradually find out that is was not really religion that was stopping them from becoming mass murderers, it was something else built deep inside the human brain.  You can say God put it there, if you wish,or that it evolved that way if you are more scientific.

If you need some proof of this, you should look at animals more closely.  You will notice that animals are capable of kindness.  But you do have to look carefully, as animals, of course do not have exactly the same sense of morality as humans.  But nature is full of heartwarming stories of animals doing good.  And human history has enough examples of religiously motivated people doing unspeakable evil.

Can we predict what will happen to individuals and societies as these scientific ideas spread?  I suspect that we may indeed have more killings and bad behaviours, but I think it is tied more to increasing populations, and new technologies facilitating mass murder, and greater access to information.  I suspect that there is not much real difference in the amount of bad behaviour today or in the future, from what there was a thousand years ago.  No matter what desperate religious conservatives have to say on that subject.  (for example blaming Darwin and the evolution of species for the Nazi holocaust)

But as these ideas of science spread, we will probably find that there will be less religious conflict in the future.  Much more freedom of religion and free thinking.  More equality between women and men.  Less racism.  More kindness to animals, and possibly more care for the natural environment.  Fewer missionaries trying to convert people.  And not a whole lot of difference in average levels of cruelty and violence in society- because it seems more and more apparent, that good and kind behaviour never was a function of religion alone.

Again the Question, Why are Universities so Liberal?

Why are university professors mostly liberals?  If this question is being asked at all, that may be a sign there is something wrong with our thinking patterns.  I always thought it was pretty obvious.  But not so obvious to someone who does not understand the traditional role of a University, or the traditional role of liberals in society.

Here is an article in the National Post, where again this question comes up.  Why so many liberals at universities?
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/09/marginalized-and-on-the-defensive-university-conservatives-forced-to-grow-tougher/

Let's just go over the basics again.  Liberal is not a dirty word, at least not before Rush Limbaugh and Fox News made it so.

Definition of liberal

lib·er·al  (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Now lets just check what a conservative is:

con·ser·va·tive  (kn-sûrv-tv)
adj.
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.

Finally, can I let someone from the early part of the twentieth century explain the traditional role of a University?

Essays: English and American.
The Harvard Classics.  1909–14.
The Idea of a University. I. What Is a University?

John Henry Newman

IF I were asked to describe as briefly and popularly as I could, what a University was, I should draw my answer from its ancient designation of a Studium Generale, or “School of Universal Learning.” This description implies the assemblage of strangers from all parts in one spot;—from all parts; else, how will you find professors and students for every department of knowledge? and in one spot; else, how can there be any school at all? Accordingly, in its simple and rudimental form, it is a school of knowledge of every kind, consisting of teachers and learners from every quarter. Many things are requisite to complete and satisfy the idea embodied in this description; but such as this a University seems to be in its essence, a place for the communication and circulation of thought, by means of personal intercourse, through a wide extent of country.

Based on these definitions, and the idea of a university being people of diverse backgrounds coming together to exchange ideas and/or learn new ideas, I think I can come up with a theory.  A liberal is, by definition, a person open to new ideas, a person wanting to learn.  A conservative is by nature a person opposed to new ideas.  The highest aspiration of a University is to encourage new ideas.

All through history, every time people who were interested in learning came together to form a university, ideas have been exchanged, new ideas have flourished.  Sometimes the authorities did not like what they saw, and shut down the universities.  Sometimes the authorities were tolerant of new ideas, and allowed the university to exist. Sometimes they even gave money to the universities.  History provides a number of examples where societies supporting free-thinking universities flourished in arts, social justice, and in technology. Those that suppressed freedom of thought in universities tended to be held back in those areas.

A modern North American conservative's idea of higher learning is really either "job training", or a place for indoctrination into some religion.  Conservative places of learning tend to have predefined goals, and encourage conformity.  For example, a conservative think tank, or a bible study college.  Conservatives are more interested in money, so they are more likely to go straight into business, using their father's connections to guarantee a good job.  If they do go to a free-thinking traditional "University" it is often just a recreational interlude, with spring breaks, wild frat parties, drugs, football and such.  After four years of being wasted, then they collect their degree and get a high paying job using their father's business connections.

So that is the answer to the question "Why are there so many liberals at university?"  It is because a true university favours the open minded approach to learning new things.  It is not because universities deliberately try to exclude Republicans, the very wealthy, the conformists, the racists, the bigots, and the religious fanatics. It is because the basis of higher learning is to be open minded, and that's the only way to have a true university. Conservative "universities", rarely generate any new ideas.  In fact their entire raison d'etre tends to be the opposition to new ideas. (Like Evangelical universities, still fighting to suppress the Theory of Evolution.)

The picture is from the University of Minnesota at Duluth, the Unfair Campaign against racism.  This (very likely liberal) poster has drawn criticism from white conservatives in the U.S.A., who do not think that white Americans are racist.  An example of how liberals seem to dominate university campuses.
http://unfaircampaign.org/resources/see-it/

How "Brandwashed" Applies to Motorcycles

I'm going to explain first the humour in the picture at the left, in case you don't get it.  A long time ago, we did not have brand logos plastered over every available square inch of space.  So I took a picture of a long ago motorcycle, and updated it by plastering brand names on it with Photoshop.


I am reading the book "Brandwashed: Tricks companies use to manipulate our minds and persuade us to buy" by Martin Lindstrom.  Martin says this book "picks up where Vance Packard's bestselling classic "The Hidden Persuaders" left off more than half a century ago."  (Note, this is not a final book review, just my pre-emptive first thoughts about the book)

Coincidentally, I did read The Hidden Persuaders about half a century ago. I felt like it opened my eyes to the tricks marketers used at the time (and still use), and it also made me aware of the high powered science and research that goes into marketing.  So over the years I have been on the lookout for new marketing techniques, and although I consider myself a brand skeptic, I also understand that just like everyone else, I can still be fooled by newly invented tricks that I may not see coming.  And I can be fooled by old tricks that I am simply powerless to fight.

Before really getting into the book, I started to wonder about the definition of branding. After all these years of being on the lookout for marketing techniques, I would like to know just how deep I am in the consumer culture.  Martin Lindstrom's definition of branding is quite open. On Page 2  "In my line of work I look at life through a particular lens:  one that sees everything on Earth ... as a brand".

Lindstrom says the band Abba is a brand.  He liked them when he was young, and still likes them now.  But what I find very telling, about Lindstrom's mental state, is that he apologises for listening to Abba.  In my opinion, if you are apologising for some "brand" you like, you are responding to brandwashing just as much as if you were boasting about a brand.  Again, it's only my opinion, but someone who truly does not respond to brandwashing, should neither boast nor apologize for a brand they have.  Boasting and apologizing are simply two sides of the same coin.  That coin is to manipulate your feelings about brands.

Lindstrom says "by the time I was five I was already preoccupied with a handful of brands. Lego, Bang and Olufsen, James Bond, the pop group Abba (I hereby apologise).  .... and later... All right I confess it, I still listen to Abba every now and again.  In my defense, I am Scandinavian."

I should suggest to Lindstrom, that if he ever wants to rid himself of brandwashing, a good place to start would be in not apologizing for listening to Abba.  Not that I am a fan of Abba myself (oops there I go, now I'm apologizing for listening to Abba).

In my own life, I can easily identify a handful of things that I like, I might even say I am obsessed with. Let's start with motorcycles, there are lots of brands involved in motorcycling.  You have the motorcycle manufacturer's brand, then you have brands involved in the accessories, in the fuel, oil, helmets, jackets, boots, accessories of all sorts, tools, magazines, movies (I saw Easy Rider and have the DVD), and owners' clubs.  I am not particularly brand loyal about my motorcycle.  I'm riding a Kawasaki Vulcan, which I'm not even sure that Kawasaki is proud of, as there are very few places you see the word Kawasaki on the bike, compared to Harley Davidsons. The Vulcan is still a motorcycle, but not a highly sought after brand - at least not for that type of motorcycle (i.e. Harley lookalikes).

Although my helmet is a Scorpion EXO1000, I have peeled the logo off it. But that may be a case of brandwashing too, because if it was a really expensive brand like an Arai, I might have left it on.  I also have a Scorpion brand jacket, that is another hint that I might be brandwashed, in that I went back to the same brand for a jacket, thereby showing some brand loyalty.

The way I see it, branding is only a part of the overall consumer culture, where people mindlessly go out and buy things that they don't really need. But when you buy things with a brand name, that are advertised, and sell for a premium price, that you really don't need, then I guess you are really "Brandwashed".

I don't really need a motorcycle either, but I have one or three.  I'm probably brandwashed to some extent, and that motorcycle is the evidence.  It (or they) may not be the top brands like Harley-Davidson, Triumph, BMW, etc. but that does not really matter.  On the other hand, I have not put myself in debt to buy them, and they help keep me from buying Rolex watches and getting obsessed with various other consumer items like winter cruises, big houses, yachts, and Ferraris.  So it's like fighting fire with fire. I buy motorcycle stuff that I don't need instead of more expensive non-motorcycling stuff that I also don't need.  It saves money.  Or so the argument in my head goes.  (arguments in my head are another hint I may be brandwashed)

One thing about motorcycling, that is an anomaly in the marketing world, is that motorcycles are not much of a status symbol outside of the community of motorcyclists themselves.  The many normal North American consumers consider motorcycles something to be ashamed of, not to boast about. Motorcycling itself is counter-cultural, even though it can also be considered a culture of its own.  So maybe that's why I didn't see much about motorcycles in Martin Lindstrom's book.

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.

Was the Jeep Move to China Really a Lie?

The Weekly Standard website ran this blog from Mark Hemingway titled "PolitiFact Concedes Their 'Lie of the Year' is the 'Literal Truth'"

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/politifact-admits-their-lie-year-literal-truth_696336.html

So Politifacts awarded the "Lie of the Year" to the Republican ad saying that Jeep was moving its production to China.  Mark Hemingway points out that the so-called lie was actually the truth, because the wording of the ad was more like "the Obama administration played a hand in selling Chrysler to Italians, who are going to build Jeeps in China."

Politifacts concedes this:

"The Romney campaign was crafty with its word choice, so campaign aides could claim to be speaking the literal truth, but the ad left a false impression that all Jeep production was being moved to China."

My impression was that this ad, true or not, was trying to get people to vote Republican by showing Obama in a bad light.  And it backfired, not because it was a lie or because it was the truth, but simply because it made people realize that Obama had done a good thing.

First, this ad ran in Ohio, where they actually make Jeeps, and so people do real serious fact-checking on any statement about Chrysler moving to China.

Obama had a hand in selling Chrysler to the Italians.  However, anyone who knows the car business understands that Chrysler had previously been sold to Mercedes Benz (a German firm), which had nothing to do with Obama. And selling to Fiat (an Italian company) is not the same as selling to a Chinese firm that is moving production to China. Second, Chrysler declared bankruptcy, also not Obama's fault.  Chrysler (makers of Jeep) did get a financial bailout from Obama, and that was what most people in Ohio were thinking about when they saw the ad, so it's not surprising the ad backfired.  So thousands of jobs were saved by Obama, and this ad simply highlighted how out of touch the Republicans were with the car-making public of Ohio.

The second "fact" highlighted by the ad, trying to make Obama look bad was Jeep production moving to China. Admittedly the ad narrative didn't say jobs "moving" to China. (although the words "return to China"  appeared briefly in print)  It said "Jeeps would be built in China", possibly giving the impression that jobs would be moving.  Actually, this was a NEW assembly plant in the planning stages, that Chrysler had not yet announced publicly.  So Chrysler was forced to come out with a public statement that the plant was a new assembly facility to build Jeeps for the emerging Chinese market.  Was that bad news for the Ohio workers? No, it was actually good news.  Only a PR specialist with no knowledge of the car business would think it was bad news.  Let me explain why its good news (I am not a Chrysler worker, but I know people who have worked for car companies, and there are many car factories around here.)  So this is why it is good news to open a Jeep assembly plant in China. The assembly plant is often a way to open up a market to your cars, just as Japanese makers have opened assembly plants in Canada to sell their cars.  When a new market opens up with a new assembly plant, many components of that car are still made in the home factories.  And some jobs actually go to Americans who move to China to help supervise the construction and operation of the plant.  Also, being a new market, no jobs are lost at home.

Actually, setting up a plant in China could be good or bad, depending on how the deal is worded, and the conditions that are set by China. It could be very bad if the Chinese plant started exporting ultra-cheap Chinese Jeeps to the USA or other parts of the world.  It could be very good if the Chinese assembly plant opened up a huge new market in China for American built components in Chinese-assembled Jeeps.  But if this deal is the way things usually work, it's a good deal for Jeep and Chrysler.

In the final analysis, this ad backfired because it gave the impression that this deal was going to be bad for Ohio, where they make Jeeps, and it left Ohioans wondering if Romney and the rest of the Republicans cared about them at all.  Because Romney himself had misunderstood this point and said in a speech that "Jeep was moving to China".  If Romney himself misunderstood the issue, I'm not sure you can get away with the claim that "The ad was worded clearly enough that nobody could mistake it."

The basis of the ad was an incorrect news story from Bloomberg, saying that Fiat, which owns Chrysler, "plans to return Jeep output to China and may eventually make all of its models in the country."  The ad was careful to not make the same mistake. But by picking up this story without fact checking it, the Republican campaign further reinforced the negative perception that they wanted the car companies to fail, and were prepared to let them fail, while Obama had done something good by keeping them alive.

Ironically, the ad starts out "Who will do more for the car industry...?"  When the dust settled, and the points were clarified, the answer turned out to be Obama.

Quoting the ad:
"Obama took Chrysler into bankruptcy and sold it to the Italians, who are going to build Jeeps in China."  The key "fact" being left out is that Chrysler is back in business in the USA because of Obama's bailout that was vigorously opposed by the Republicans, including Romney.  Such an ad may work with voters who don't know much about the business, but it was stupid to run it in Ohio.

Then the printed false quote from Bloomberg was superimposed on the video of the ad in case you didn't see it, it came at 23 seconds in.  (Almost like subliminal messaging) But the ultimate lie was that Romney would do more for the car business than Obama.

Was Hitler Really A Gun Control Freak?

Last Sunday sitting at Tim Horton's a friend of mine stated that Hitler had taken guns away from the German people, the implication being that putting in gun controls in the USA would be a precursor to tyranny.  Although this statement was likely to come from dubious sources (like the NRA), I had to let it go, but remembered to look it up when I got home.  What I found was the exact opposite of the belief that Hitler was a leftist gun-control freak.

First, from Wikipedia, a bit of history around gun controls in Germany.

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

After Germany lost WW1 in 1918, it was the victorious allies that made it illegal for German citizens to own guns, not Hitler. Hitler had not yet appeared on the political scene, and would not have substantial power until at least ten years later.

In 1938, Hitler did pass a "gun control" law for the German people, but it was actually to ease off the original harsh disarmament after the occupation of WW1.  So Hitler actually made it easier for German people to own guns.  Surprisingly, Hitler's gun control law did not specifically exclude Jews from owning guns, although the law did exclude people of questionable trustworthiness, whatever that means to a Nazi.  And apparently many Nazis did think that Jews had questionable trustworthiness.  But Jews were a very small part of the German population, less than 600,000 in a population of 60 million.  Overall gun ownership in Germany went up under Hitler.

It kind of makes sense that Hitler supported increased gun ownership too, because this law helped the entire firearms industry, that the Nazis would be needing soon.  Because they could sell more guns, they could ramp up production easily for war.

Hitler did make some comments about disarming the people.  I got this from a right wing web site: "Hitler was a Leftist"

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html

This is Hitler's statement.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942,

I'm surprised that the quote seems to be intact, often it is found with the part about "in the occupied Russian Territories" left out.   But Hitler is quite right about disarming countries that you conquer.  He also disarmed the Dutch people after they surrendered in 1940. After WW2, the British, American, French and Russians also disarmed the Germans, as the Allies did after WW1. It is commonplace, and it does not make you a "leftist" or a "rightist" either.  Everybody seems to agree on disarming conquered people.


Here is another article on Gun control in Germany by William L. Pierce.

http://www.natvan.com/national-vanguard/assorted/gunhitler.html

The most ironic thing about all this is that Hitler's main tool for gaining control of the German people was Propaganda, not Gun Control.  And this little story about Hitler being a gun control freak is basically modern right wing propaganda that many people seem to be falling for.  A strong democracy depends on an informed population.  Disinformation is the tool of tyrants, and far more powerful than gun control.  Hitler used propaganda to make Germans hate the Jews, just like right wingers today use propaganda to make people hate liberals, Muslims, socialists etc.  Once the hatred for Jews was accomplished, Hitler had full control of Germany.  The propaganda of hate is the real precursor to tyranny.

Picture: from http://americainchains2009.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/dictators-and-gun-control/

Nero Fiddled, but Did He Pay His Taxes?

Recently I watched an argument on Fox news about whether the rich should pay more taxes. In the shouting match, several key points were raised.

Patriotic Millionaire Eric Schoenberg leaves Fox Business host Stuart Varney speechless at 3:51 of this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdgQnl2tbhs

Stuart Varney belongs to "Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength", and was facing a panel on Fox news.

To summarize the existing situation:  The USA is in a fiscal crisis with high debt levels, and President Obama has noted that during the last 50 or so years, tax rates have declined, especially on the rich.  Obama campaigned on the argument that the rich should pay their fair share of taxes.

On the other side of the coin, the rich (represented by Fox News), argue that "it is not a sin to make money" and "making the rich pay will not solve America's debt crisis", and "Jobs are created by the rich, but not if they are taxed too much".

One point that was raised on this program happened when the host Stuart Varney told Eric that if he wanted to pay more taxes, to take out his chequebook and make a payment to the USA government.  And let the other rich people keep their hard earned money.  Stuart explained first, that taxes are not a charitable contribution where you pay whatever you want.  And secondly, if people did pay taxes voluntarily, then those who refuse to pay should not get free government services.  Eric mentioned a list of services including police protection, fire protection, and good roads.

When he brought up the subject of fire protection, one of the Fox Panel jumped in with the fact that there are more fires in slums where people don't even pay taxes.  Apparently rich people's houses don't burn down as frequently, and so do not use up resources from the fire department.  Logically I guess that means that poor people living in slums should pay more for fire services etc.

But wait a minute here.  I am not aware of any study that has determined that poor people living in slums use up more of the government services than rich people. (I'm not talking just about fire services, but police services too.  And roads and infrastructure such as drainage, water, electricity.)  I think it's the opposite, with rich neighbourhoods getting the best support.  I'm not arguing that that is right or wrong, but I cannot tolerate pure bullsh*t that says fire department funding goes mainly to slum dwellers.

Let's get into fire protection, then.  One of the hardest fires to fight, and the most dangerous, are forest fires that can ravage wealthy neighbourhoods as easily as the slums. Wealthy people have a tendency to place their homes in open forested areas, where they are very hard to protect from forest fires.  Poor people cannot afford these expensive home sites because of the cost of land.

A little research on the internet comes up with these facts.

Richard Branson's "cottage" burns to the ground. (Richard Branson is rich)

http://www.businessinsider.com/richard-branson-necker-island-fire-photos-2011-8?op=1

Firefighter lured to their deaths in ambush. This did not take place in a slum, but I'm guessing the gunman was not a millionaire either.  On the other hand, he could easily have been a Fox News watcher.  And Fox does support making guns more available.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/25/rochester-firefighters-ambush-condition.html

The Cerro Grande fire, New Mexico, 2000.  400 homes lost.  Also, the Los Alamos National Laboratory was damaged, which brings up the situation where fire fighters are fighting to save Government infrastructure, not just the private dwellings of taxpayers.

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

Historically, inner city fires are a boon for the very rich, as slums can be cleared more easily when they are in smoking ruins, and somebody has to redevelop the now-valuable property.  Check out this story about Rome under Emperor Nero.

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

Picture: Detroit home target for fire.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2012971/From-Motown-Ghost-town-How-mighty-Detroit-heading-long-slow-road-ruin.html

What is a Marxist-Leninist Capitalist Tool?

Another Forbes Magazine article by Mark Hendrickson titled "President Obama's Marxist-Leninist Economics: Fact And Fiction" takes a scholarly look at whether Obama's policies are truly Marxist-Leninist, or whether this is just name-calling.  However, despite the scholarly first paragraph it then soon loses the high road.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/07/26/president-obamas-marxist-leninist-economics-fact-and-fiction/

Mark Hendrickson's final paragraph in this article does a better job than I ever could of summarizing the entire article. Here it is in Mark's own words:

"In closing, I repeat that we should not recklessly call Obama a “Marxist-Leninist.” Although it’s too long and cumbersome a label for a generation addicted to sound bites and simplistic labels, a fair description of Obama and his economic goals is to say that he is “an interventionist, corporatist, statist, Big Government progressive, free-market-hating control freak who favors economic policies of a Marxist-Leninist flavor.”"

Whew. That was a mouthful. I had to look up some of the words in his "fair description of Obama".  "Corporatism".. is that a new swearword?  I had to check with Wikipedia, and honestly I don't see how the word could be applied to Obama any more than it could be applied to either the NRA or to Christian Fundamentalists, or even to corporations, actually.

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


And statist too? Wikipedia says

"statism (French: étatisme) is the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.[1][2][3][4] Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism."

So Obama is opposed to anarchy and favours some degree of state control of economic policy.  Is that all?

I was afraid I was missing something here, and so I went to Conservapedia to see if there was a different definition on Statism.  And I think I found one.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Statism

"A statist government treats its political sovereignty as a platform for moral sovereignty. In other words, as ultimate sovereign, the state is therefore not subject to God, the Bible, natural law, or any other religion or ethical system. A statist government need not be accountable to its own citizens.
The philosopher Georg Hegel described the state as "God walking on earth".[2] In other words, as the state is the ultimate power in life, it assumes the status of God and can do as it pleases. This line of thinking influenced the political thought of Karl Marx. "

So according to conservatives, a statist opposes God's rule. Now back to Wikipedia to define a theocracy (where God does rule):

"Theocracy is a form of government in which a deity is officially recognized as the civil Ruler and official policy is governed by officials regarded as divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group.[1][2][3]
From the perspective of the theocratic government, "God himself is recognized as the head" of the state,[4]

The arguments against theocracy, taken directly from Conservapedia:

• "Stifling of speech. In a theocracy, it would be counterlogical to allow the citizens to know, or accept other religions or ideologies. Presumably, some mechanism will be placed to prevent dangerous speech, or make the ideas within artificially unwanted.
• Thought is severely engineered, to prevent "dangerous" thoughts (Atheism, etc).
• Unaccountable government. Because the government is supposedly an extension of a deity, they cannot be held accountable."

Sounds to me like high praise for Obama the Statist, from Conservapedia.  But then, wasn't it Conservapedia that defined Hitler as a Leftist, and then defined Leftists as opposed to military spending?

In the end, I think there is a twist of logic in Mark Hendrickson's essay.  Apparently, Obama is not a true perfect Marxist Leninist, but then, neither was Marx or Lenin.  Therefore, according to Hendrickson, it is even more correct to call Obama a Marxist-Leninist.  Because Obama, like Lenin, is not a perfect Marxist-Leninist either.

Mark Hendrickson first states that the standards for being called a Marxist Leninist are set impossibly high. But then he sets the bar impossibly low.

Picture: from the Marxist-Leninist Study Guide http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/study-guide/

Now Forbes Magazine is Really a Capitalist Tool

An opinion piece in Forbes caught my eye, but only because I remember Malcolm Forbes, the publisher  of Forbes Magazine before he died in 1990.  Malcolm had a motorcycle gang called the "Capitalist Tools" who toured the Soviet Union and China.  He was featured in BMW ads as a man who owned 3 BMW motorcycles, but actually he owned far more Harley Davidsons, and his club rode Harleys while on tour.

Anyhow, back to the article in Forbes Magazine, which was titled "Romney And Ryan Didn't Cut It In A Time For Radicalism" by Mark Hendrickson.  Four lines into the article, we come to the phrase "a president with a Marxist Leninist economic agenda".  The "president" here being the President of the United States of America.

The contrast between Malcolm "The Capitalist Tool" and Hendrickson strikes me.  Malcolm actually got out there in the world and saw how the Russians lived under a Marxist Leninist economic agenda.  Hendrickson sits at home and glibly bandies words with an intent akin to name-calling.  Furthermore, the point of the article seems to be saying that millionaires should not be taxed more than the poor ("Rich people are Americans too"), and yet Malcolm suffered under even higher tax rates than proposed by Obama, and still had money to buy motorbikes, tour the world, and throw multi million dollar birthday parties. And as far as I know, he never referred to his own government as Marxist-Leninist, even as heavily taxed as he was.

The motto of Forbes Magazine is also "Capitalist Tool", and back in Forbes' day, this was an ironic reference to the phrase often used by Communist propagandists, referring to any people, especially political leaders, who were "tools" of the capitalists.  In other words, stooges, or dupes, blindly doing the will of the very rich to keep down the common man.  So the phrase had a humorous meaning, and Malcolm carried that phrase right into the heart of communism, the USSR and China, as the name of his motorcycle club.

Apparently, today, the magazine subtitled The Capitalist Tool has actually become a capitalist tool, without any real understanding of what it means.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/12/20/romney-and-ryan-didnt-cut-it-in-a-time-for-radicalism/


Picture from this web page: http://www.bikeme.tv/bm_articles/riders/2006/famous-motorcyclists-of-last-century-iii.asp

Also on this page: Forbes lives on in some of his quotations:

"I made my money the old fashioned way. I was very nice to a wealthy relative right before he died."

Comparing 2 Movies "The Time Machine" and "Chasing Ice"

 I watched the movie "Chasing Ice" last night, and a few days ago, I also saw a 1960 movie by George Pal, "The Time Machine". The first similarity that struck me was the use of time lapse photography in both movies.  In case you have never seen this classic movie, The Time Machine, maybe you want to skip this review that includes spoilers.  Now go and see the movie, or maybe read the book.

The Time Machine is based on an H.G. Wells science fiction book from 1895, where someone invents a time machine and travels forward 800,000 years to the future to see how the world has progressed. The time lapse photography is used to simulate the effect of moving forward rapidly through time to the future.

Chasing Ice is a documentary by James Balog about our world's beautiful but disappearing ice landscapes.  In this documentary, time lapse photography is used to speed up the shrinking of glaciers so that you can see in one minute, what took five years to occur naturally.

In a way, both movies are about the same thing.   They are predicting the future, and have something to say about humans causing this future.  The main difference is that "The Time Machine" has to go forward 800,000 years to see what will happen, while Chasing Ice only needs to go from 5 years ago to the present time, to see what will happen.  Chasing Ice needs no time machine, nor does it need to  invent a future. It is enough to show what has happened in the last five years, and from there, scientists have told us what will happen next.

In The Time Machine, no global warming seems to be happening.  H. G. Wells is more worried about what will happen to mankind, if the gap between the rich and poor increases, and if we continue having wars with technologically advanced weapons.  According to his vision, 800,000 years in the future, the rich classes (called the Eloi) will have lost their energy and will to succeed, while the working classes (called the Morlocks) have moved underground, and evolved into a different species that now uses the Eloi as feeding stock.  H.G. Wells explains this in terms of evolution and predictable outcomes of social and economic forces.  However he does seem to be discouraged that the Eloi have no will to resist the Morlocks, nor any desire to even rescue each other when danger looms.  The Eloi seem like brainwashed zombies sleepwalking to their doom, not curious about what is happening or why.  The Morlocks, while looking like beasts, at least have drive, cunning, and curiosity.

Now here is where another parallel appears.  If you believe the rapid warming of the planet may have disastrous consequences, then we are already in some ways like the Eloi.  Because humans taken as a whole, do not seem to have the will or even the curiosity to fight back.  Mankind has the same attitude as the Eloi in that we simply accept what will happen.  Another similarity is that our present situation is being controlled and manipulated by present day Morlocks.  I don't mean that they look scary or anything, but there seems to be a split between rich and poor that is growing.  I'm going to call the Morlocks the rich, who benefit materially from a passive working middle class.  I don't mean to imply that the present day Morlocks are eating the present day Eloi.  They are just using them to get richer and more powerful.  And cynically manipulating them through controlled messages on TV, Internet, newspapers, and radio.

H.G. Wells' original Morlocks actually evolved from the poor and working classes, while the Eloi evolved from the rich idle classes.  I'm not sure this is made abundantly clear in the movie, but I read the book after I saw the movie.  The book is far more left wing in it's attitude than a movie (which was made during the cold war) could ever be, and Wells' opinions are made clearer in the book.

My interpretation of Chasing Ice in 2012 has the Morlocks and Eloi in role reversal,  but I think the main point is that in both movies mankind is passively accepting a situation that is within their grasp to change.  And in both movies there exists a class divide that pits an aggressive class against a passive class.

In the end, both movies are looking at how the world changes.  But for H.G. Wells, the changes are so slow as to require 800,000 years and a time machine to see.  For we humans of 2012, cataclysmic changes are so speeded up that a time machine is superfluous.

Towards a Garbage-Free MacLean's Magazine

MacLean's magazine has a new article by Cynthia Reynolds titled "Why are schools brainwashing our children?"

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/10/31/why-are-schools-brainwashing-our-children/

In this article Cynthia gives examples of situations where children in Canadian schools are being brainwashed into being tolerant and caring for the environment.

Let me take one example.

  "In Laval, Que., a six-year-old boy was disqualified from a teddy-bear contest because a Ziploc was found in his lunch".

Now if I may clarify this a little: It was not a Teddy Bear contest, it was a draw for a teddy bear in a garbage free lunch contest. Yes, the difference is important. What is a garbage free lunch?  It is a lunch that has no garbage in it.  What is garbage? Any throw-away one-use container.  Now, let's go into this a little bit more.  A drink box has garbage (the box and the straw.) An apple core is not counted as garbage.  A candy bar has garbage. (The wrapper).  Any garbage in your lunch means you don't have a garbage-free lunch. A tupperware container is not garbage because it can be re-used.  But if you throw the tupperware container away, it should count as garbage.  If you remove the wrapper from the candy bar at home and put the naked bar in a Tupperware container, the teacher has to make a call one way or the other.  A Ziplock bag is not necessarily garbage.  It can be taken home, cleaned and re-used.  But if it is thrown out after one use, it is garbage.  A fair teacher would accept the ziplock bag as long as it is taken home and re-used, but of course it's impossible to know the truth.  Obviously, garbage free lunch games are not that simple.

Now to explain a little bit about teaching. Teachers generally reward students learning with scores and marks, rarely with material goods.  That's because the school budget does not allow for it.  So who paid for the Teddy Bear prize?  I couldn't find out, but it might have been an old item that the teacher needed to get rid of, and if so, the teacher had found a good way to divert one more bit of garbage from the landfill. Very unlikely to be the taxpayers footing the Teddy Bear expense.

Now what about the ziplock bag scandal? I think a case could have been made for the ziplock bag in a garbage free lunch, but first you have to understand what is going on.  Sometimes six year old kids make mistakes. That's why we have teachers.

Now why do Conservatives (and their propaganda machines like MacLean's Magazine) hate it when children learn about garbage?  Probably the same reason they hate children to learn about tolerance.  Conservative propaganda has two main pillars: support for corporate profits, and hatred for "others".  It suits the conservative agenda to keep people as ignorant and easily-led consumers of throw-away trash.  The last thing conservatives want is for children to learn about the environment, because that might affect corporate profits.

Why would MacLean's sensationalize this simple story?  And does MacLean's do the same kind of one-sided misrepresentation when they are stirring up hate against minority groups?  The answer is yes.

MacLean's is a conservative, bigoted magazine.  I think the more appropriate question would be "Why is MacLean's Magazine Brainwashing Canadians", but I think we all know the answer. Because it pleases their rich owners, and stirring up hatred is the best way to brainwash people.

Next, the goal for MacLean's: Let's try to put out a garbage free newsmagazine.

Picture: Left garbage lunch, right garbage free.  from this website

  http://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin406.shtml

Gorillas are Liars

If a human speaks truthfully only once in their entire life, they are still an honest person. But if a Gorilla tells one lie, that gorilla is a liar for the rest of their lives.   This is a double standard.

In California, there is a female gorilla named Koko, who has been taught to speak in sign language. With an I.Q. of about 75, and a vocabulary of 1000 sign language words, she can form sentences and make up new compound words.

There are reports that Koko lied once.  Once, when left alone, Koko tore a sink out of the wall.  When her human discovered the ruined sink, and asked Koko who did it, Koko blamed her pet kitten.  Yes, Koko the gorilla had a pet kitten.  How did Koko get a pet kitten?  She asked for one through sign language, of course.  Anyway, With this one lie, Koko is now famous for being a liar, even though everything else she says is true (e.g. Koko want banana)

I have noticed that lying is more acceptable among humans than among gorillas.

Performing experiments on Koko could answer a lot of questions for us.  I have an idea for an experiment to force Koko to watch Fox News 24 hours a day.  After a few weeks, will this gorilla begin to forward right wing e-mails?

I am also interested in whether a Gorilla has the "God Gene", enabling them to have paranormal spiritual experiences.  I suspect that somebody has already spoken to Koko about religion. In wikipedia, I read that Koko named a Macaw "Devil tooth" because of the Macaw's dangerous beak.  So I assume at some point an attempt was made to convert Koko to Christianity, because otherwise how would Koko know the word "Devil". Unfortunately, I could not find out what Koko's religious affiliations were.

I Googled this website, titled "Koko the Gorilla PROVES Evolution a Lie!".  My immediate thought was that the born again Christians had gotten to Koko, and now Koko thinks that evolution is a lie.  But how would a gorilla, even as smart as Koko, prove Darwinism is a lie, while many humans have not been able to do so.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/koko.htm

Unfortunately, it was not Koko's clever arguments that proved evolution was a lie.  It was the existence of Koko that proved humans could not have descended from apes. (The reason being if apes turned into humans, then how come Koko is still here?)  Frankly I was  disappointed, as I was looking forward to reading about Koko's thoughts on evolution and instead I got the thoughts of David J. Stewart, a Born Again Christian, and a long time non-gorilla.

If I understand religion correctly, God has made it possible only for Humans to commit sins.  The concept of sin does not apply to animals, therefore Koko can never "be saved by Jesus".  However even though Koko is an animal, it appears that she has officially sinned in the Human sense. Koko was once accused of sexual harassment in the workplace. I am not sure how the lawsuit against Koko ended, but innocent or guilty, where there's smoke there's fire, I always say.

I found a web page with an online chat between Koko and other AOL users, (no jokes about AOL users please.)  Many AOL'ers found Koko's conversation boring and began to dismiss her intellectual abilities.  If you are familiar with what people say about AOLers, this is a real put down.

http://worldofjasoncraft.com/Kokostory.html

Fortunately, Jason Craft was able to provide a simple explanation for Koko's seemingly nonsensical chat session.

Picture: Koko uses sign language to show Pet Kitty how to chat on AOL.  I photoshopped the computer and the words.  The Kitty is real.

Seven Things You Can't Say in Canada, Apparently.

Margaret Wente, a columnist for the Globe and Mail, wrote a piece for the Canadian Version of Reader's Digest titled "Seven Things You Can't Say in Canada".  To provide a bit of background, I consider the Reader's Digest to be an American propaganda voice, and the Canadian Edition to be a thinly disguised American propaganda outlet, forced to run "Canadian Content" similar to Time Magazine.  Margaret Wente moved to Canada in 1964 and became a Canadian citizen.

http://www.readersdigest.ca/magazine/7-things-you-can-t-say-canada-0

"Influential columnist Margaret Wente shares her controversial opinion on seven sacred Canadian cows most dare not criticize. Margaret Wente's background gives her a certain perspective on Canada's sacred cows."

There may be things you can't say in Canada, but in my opinion, these are not them.

1. Margaret Atwood's books are awful? Well at first I thought Wente might have a point there.  I hated "Stone Angel", at least the small part of it that I actually read.  Then I realized that "Stone Angel" is written by Margaret Lawrence.  Margaret Atwood wrote "The Handmaid's Tale", which I liked, or I should say I liked the movie, as I didn't read the book.  This barely qualifies as something you can't say in Canada.  If you said it in certain intellectual circles, you may get a lively debate going.  But I guarantee the secret police will not be at your door the next day
2. Recycling is a waste of time and money? I recycle stuff, and I find that overall I save time by recycling. I only have to put the garbage/recycling box out about once every six weeks instead of once a week. In exchange, I spend a bit of time sorting the trash into different boxes, and cleaning out empty cans and bottles. Because the blue box is right beside the garbage can, the extra time take making the decision where to throw stuff is negligible. The time I spend on recycling is done in a nice warm house.  The time I save carrying out the garbage is outdoors,  FMAO.  As for wasting money, I have been told that the recycling program is paid for by the bottling/canning companies, although I doubt it.  I can see the point though, that if a lot of people are spending time and paying taxes for a recycling program that some other people are ignoring, then it becomes an aggravation when somebody argues against it.  Kind of like somebody saying they save time by throwing their Tim Horton's cups on your lawn.  But news flash for Margaret Wente: Many populated parts of the USA have started recycling programs since you left in 1963.  When I was in Bismark North Dakota this summer, there was a discussion going on about starting up a blue box program even out there.  So the same taboo of criticizing recycling would apply in some parts of the USA.
3. Private enterprise saving health care?  Yes, you would get an argument from me about this.  I consider Canada's health care system to be an important part of living in Canada, and if we didn't have free health care I would probably move to the USA.  Here is why.  Without free health care I am obviously going to die sooner because I am a cheap bastard who doesn't want to pay for insurance or even life saving surgery.  So if I'm going to die sooner, I might as well go to the USA where I can at least ride my bike year round until I die from lack of health care.
4. David Suzuki is bad for the environment.  As Margaret says, "And our hugely expensive investment in the unworkable Kyoto treaty, which Mr. Suzuki tells us doesn’t go nearly far enough, will crowd out more practical measures to cut smog and clean up our waste sites." With recycling, Margaret was about 30 years behind the times, but with smog Margaret now appears to be  60 years behind the times. Killer smog was a big deal in London in 1952.  They took measures to eliminate smog, and so did the USA, particularly Los Angeles and the state of California. Smog has largely been dealt with now, and I'm guessing the expense was huge but probably worth it.  And as for more practical measures for cleaning up waste sites, didn't Margaret just finish arguing against recycling?  If she has something else in mind, now is the time to speak up.  Not even Americans (And I don't mean that in a bad way)  want the environment destroyed.
5. National day care programs: I don't care one way or the other at this point.  Let's skip to another topic that actually would annoy me.
6. Group of Seven paintings Overexposed?  I, like many other Canadians, do not buy art, but if we did it might be paintings of trees and rocks.  I suppose its possible that Canadian Art Critics may try to silence anyone who criticises the Group of Seven, as I have never met a Canadian Art Critic.  
7. The USA is the greatest force for good in the world.  Now we come to the climax, this is probably what Margaret Wente wanted to say all along, but had to pad it out with six other topics to make an entire column.  Canadians, of course feel this statement is bullsh*t, or we would have joined the USA long ago.  That way, we at least could vote in the US elections, and cross into Detroit without being sniffed up by salivating Rottweilers.  But she is right, Canadians do not believe that Americans are the master race come in the name of God to save the world.  The greatest force for good in the world may be science, or education, or a free press, or the Internet,  or consumerism, or democracy.  There are many choices, unfortunately all flawed in some way.

That brings us to the end of the seven things Margaret Wente thinks you can't say in Canada.

Now what about some of these that I came up with, that I didn't see on her list, but I think would be acceptable answers to the question "What things can't you say in Canada?"

1. Torture is a good way to extract confessions from criminals and terrorists.

2. Sometimes the law does not work, so lynchings are necessary.

3. Jesus is our only hope for salvation, and Pat Robertson is His one true prophet.

4. There was no holocaust.

5. Canada is the greatest force for good in the world.

Saying any of those 5 things in Canada would get you more of an argument than saying Margaret Atwood's books stink.

Picture: From Readers Digest, but I added the ironic wording on the box and on the shirt. Yes, ironic.

Do We Really Have to Pay the US to Take Our Electricty

For a few years now I have been listening to opponents of wind energy make claims that it is too expensive, too erratic, and we have no way of storing the excess energy for use at peak hours.

I have been sceptical of these claims, but one story I read recently tops them all.

On CTV news,  "energy expert Tom Adams, told CTV's Queen's Park bureau chief Paul Bliss. "We have to get rid of it. It's a disposal problem and sometimes our neighbours need to get paid in order to take custody.""

He was of course referring to wind energy, and the claim that Ontario must pay neighboring states to accept energy from our grid when we have too much.

I don't really know if this is blatant propaganda or not, because I can imagine a situation where we would have to pay to get rid of something that might be harmful to us.  In electricity, this is not uncommon actually.  For example, there are times that you need to shut down a high voltage power line, and you need very expensive equipment to do it, because a sudden shut-off builds up the voltage.  If you do not have this equipment, you may need to pay someone to do it for you - in theory anyway.  Another example of excess energy is a car travelling at high speed that needs to stop suddenly.  That kinetic energy has to go somewhere, so hopefully you have brakes to disperse it.  Some cars have brakes that store the energy (like the Prius).  Other cars have no brakes (like my '72 Corolla after it lost a wheel strut), and you have to find some other way to get rid of your energy.  If you plow into another car, that other car takes your energy, but in the end you will have to pay - either direct costs or in insurance premiums.

So are we talking about some kind of shock absorbing system being provided by our neighbours, because Ontario does not possess any way to recapture excess power?  Or is there actually any known way to either recapture excess power, or to at least burn it off?  Wind energy opponents have told us it is not possible to store energy, which I believe is not only false and misleading, but goes against all common sense.  But now apparently they are saying there is no way to even dump energy, without paying the US to do it for us.

Upon researching this story further, I expected to discover that there was some unusual, hopefully temporary, situation that forced Ontario to dump excess energy into the US grid.  For example, an unforeseen spike of wind energy combined with an unforeseen reduction of power requirements.  In a brief span of time, it might have been impossible to shut off the wind turbines or the water power, nuclear power, gas fired, or coal power plants.  So maybe we had to pay money until some parts of the energy generating system plants could be shut down.  I don't know how long this might take, as I am not an "expert".  But it seems to me that a month is a bit excessive simply to reduce our power output just a little.

So in my opinion, this story is planted to mess with our minds, and to soften us up so that we stop questioning the anti-wind power "experts" on their outrageous statements.

I do not believe that it takes a month to reduce our power output to the point where we stop paying a penalty to the US.

I do not believe there is no way to burn off excess energy harmlessly.

I do not believe that there is no way to store energy, although its possible that Ontario needs to build some, or more than they already have.

If you want me to believe those things,  a lot more explanation will be required than the statement of another energy expert.

Tom Adam's blog
http://tomadamsenergy.com/
  Tom Adams refers to this article  "perhaps the most coherent, balanced and accurate explanation of wind power to so far appear in the Canadian print media." in his blog post titled "Excellent Journalism re. Wind in Ontario’s Power System"

http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/wind+power+more+complicated+than+people+imagine/3376723/story.html


Quote from this article (which refers to Tom Adams as a source.)

"For a full month the price of our power was negative — that is, we were paying utilities in Ohio and Michigan to take it off our hands.
Private energy analyst Tom Adams thinks that could happen again when we lean more heavily on wind power. Wind turbines can shut down in high wind, but Ontario would still have to pay them for the power they aren’t generating, like a diner who orders a restaurant meal and doesn’t eat it. It’s called “curtailed output.”"

Since When is Lying a Conservative Value?

For several years now I have wrestled with this interesting question. Who is telling the truth on TV and on the Internet? On one hand you have the Conservatives claiming to tell the truth. On the other you have the Liberals with exactly the same claim. In order to sort out the difference, I might have to fact-check every single statement made on TV or in the media. Even I, with my high speed Internet connection, and abundant free time, have been intimidated by this prospect. And as a result I have disengaged from some political debates that seem bogged down because of conflict source material. The fact is, most source material for political arguments does come from the media.


But now I think there is finally an issue that separates Conservative values from the Liberal values. This issue promises to put to rest the question about who is lying and who is telling the truth. It all comes down to one word: "Knowingly".

Last February, 2011, the CRTC applied to change a rule prohibiting the broadcasting of false and misleading information in Canada. According to their website the effective date of this rule change would be September 1, 2011. As of September 1, radio and TV stations are only prevented from "knowingly" broadcasting false and misleading information.

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-14.htm

Is the addition of the word "knowingly" that big of a deal? Well, for one thing, a TV network would do well to fire any fact-checkers and researchers that they currently employ. The less they know, the less their legal liability. There is no CRTC regulation forcing broadcasters to hire fact checkers or researchers - I guess that was implied in the regulation preventing the broadcasting of false and misleading information. So my legal advice would be to fire the researchers and real reporters.

To illustrate the legal case, what is the difference between "Speed Limit of 100 kph" and "Speed Limit of 100 kph* (* knowingly)". When you are pulled over for speeding, the first question is "Did you know what speed you were going?" The answer, "No sir, I was not watching my speed" is not a good defence. Wouldn't it be fun if the law was only to punish people who admitted that they know what speed they were going? I would love to answer, "No sir, I don't have a clue! My speedometer is busted/covered with mud/my eyes don't focus that close/I was busy texting". The officer then is forced to reply "Oh, I am sorry, I didn't realize that you were unknowingly doing 235 kph back there. Sorry for the delay and have a nice day!"

Now who is pushing this small, but disturbing change to TV regulation? First I do not think it is the Liberals or the left wing. Fact one: This change is being made under a conservative government. Fact two, a new conservative TV station, Sun News, coincidentally began broadcasting right wing propaganda in the springtime of 2011. I am not aware of any left wing propaganda stations starting up lately. I realize that this is just circumstantial evidence, there is no publicly stated policy from the conservatives on lying. But the evidence is still very strong, and has the implication that the Conservatives are in favour of spreading untruths and misinformation.

From now on, what is the point of debating "Global Warming" based on media sources? What's the point of debating war, labour unrest, religion, free markets, or any of the other hundreds of political hot buttons? We will no longer be able to have a common point of reference in the media, a reference that we have counted on for years.

In a final note, I have not been able to find final confirmation on the Internet of this CRTC rule change. Last I heard, the left wing groups were still fighting it. All my sources are from January-February this year. But even if the "knowingly" modification is thwarted, it still is a clear indication of which side is more willing to spread false propaganda.

http://www.petitiononline.com/stopcrtc/petition.html

Picture: The Lost Motorcyclist photoshopped this speed limit sign to add the word "knowingly".

Extremism for Dummies

There are two definitions of extremism in common use. Because we seem to be getting more extremists than ever before, I want to come up with a useful definition.

The first meaning is "outside the norm of a given society", which is used in the Wikipedia entry on extremism. I don't think this definition is right any more. Maybe it used to be accurate, when you could assume that the norm of any society was moderation. But if the norm in a society becomes extremism, then is being outside the norm still extremism?

The second meaning is "Uncompromising". This, I think, is a more generally applicable definition. For one thing, it gives a universal standard of behaviour to judge extremism by. If someone or some government is willing to compromise, it is not extremist. According to this definition, it is possible to be a moderate minority within an extremist majority.

There are examples of extremism throughout history, using the second definition. The Spanish Inquisition would be extremist because they did not compromise with heretics. Instead of compromise, there was burning at the stake and torture. The Nazis were extremists, as shown by the Czech Peace Agreement. The British and French signed a compromise deal for peace, agreeing to give Czechoslovakia to the Nazis in return for peace without further land claims. Instead, the Nazis invaded Poland, which clearly established them as extremists. No real compromises could be made with the Nazis or Hitler, despite their willingness to talk of peace. Ultimately, this revelation of extremism made it impossible for Britain to surrender on good terms after the fall of France, even though Hitler pleaded that he meant them no harm, and would allow them to keep their sovereignty.

The Nazis went on to show themselves as extremists in many other ways, but were finally beaten by a coalition of moderates.

There are good examples of extremism today in certain religions. Extremist Moslems want to wipe Israel off the map, and the USA too, if they could. Extremist Jews want all Palestinian disputed territories for themselves, and want to deny independence to the Palestinians, and would resort to any means to accomplish that including killing. I suppose you could say Jesus was an extremist, but an extremist for peace. Now, extremist Christians want to bomb Iran, and kill doctors who perform abortions.

None of these religious groups is interested in any compromise. All would prefer the world to end than give up their demands - and that gives us yet another way to define extremism. If you would be willing to kill yourself and the rest of humanity rather than accept a compromise with another, you are an extremist.

Most people are not born extremists, but are sometimes driven to extremism by forces beyond their awareness. First, a very fearful life with a lot of uncertainty can make one predisposed to extremism. Certain powers like to promote fear and extreme views in order to benefit from the support of extremists.

If you were talking to an extremist, whether a friend or family member, or a total stranger, is there some way to know this is an extremist? You you use the definition of "outside the norm", you may not be able to ever tell. But if you use the definition of "uncompromising", it is easier to figure out if you are dealing with a moderate or an extremist. One clue is that an extremist will hardly ever admit their side can be wrong. But for the most reliable indicator of extremism, try proposing a compromise and see the reaction you get. An angry reply, a refusal to discuss further, or both, may be a clue you are talking to an extremist.

There is not much point in discussing things with extremists. While you may learn something of their point of view, you will simply become frustrated by their means of discussion. Instead of logically addressing an issue, you will find they present you with multiple arguments, usually handed on from other sources. If you question them about the issue on an obvious flaw of logic, they can quickly change the subject. Most of their opinions are designed not for truth seeking but for provoking anger and confrontational arguments.


Picture: from the Anti-Defamation League website discussing extremism.

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/

The ADL was set up in 1913 to combat anti-Jewish extremism Their website names a lot of extremist people, organizations and movements. I could not find a mention of the Jewish Settler movement, although according to my definition, those people would also be extremists because they are not interested in compromise. On the other hand, maybe the mandate of the Anti Defamation League is only to attack non-Jewish extremism. Would that make the ADL itself an extremist organization?

This was the 1913 incident that gave the ADL its start (and re-started the Ku Klux Klan).

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