Monday, June 26, 2017

"Party of One" - A Belated Review

Found a signed hardcover version of this at Value Village a month or two ago. Just finished it. I hadn't forgotten how vile and loathsome stephen harper was, but this book does an excellent job of clarifying the details that demonstrated his banal evil, shallowness and stupidity. Some random impressions:

I never clearly understood just how illegitimate and sleazy harper's attack on nuclear regulator Linda Keen was. She was just doing her job and harper stupidly attacked her thereby doing a lot of damage. His reasons, obviously, were stupid, because he is stupid. Through and through.

Which compels me to jump towards near the end of the book. The Duffy scandal. It was really too bad that Senate corruption resonated more with Canadians than did contempt of Parliament and war crimes. But it was fun to read Harris's concise summary of the scandal. Coming away from it you realize these people are all insane. Duffy, to his credit, wanted to be a Senator from Ontario, but harper told him it would be PEI and this would be fine, because he, harper the great, had decreed it would be so. Turned out harper was wrong. Whatever. Because Duffy decided all by himself, that if he could lie about living in PEI, he could lie about travel and accommodation expenses. Duffy, all on his own, decided to expense to the taxpayers for food he ate at home in Ottawa. And to this day, Duffy, Wallin, ... the whole lot of these fraudsters who were shilling for the harpercon party while pretending to represent their regions in the Senate, believe they did nothing wrong. The rules were "confusing." (No. They aren't.) They made honest mistakes. (No. The didn't.) They really are entitled to expense personal travel costs to the public dime. (No.)

But the real treat is reading how harper, the coward/bully/cad & thief, put his incompetence and stupidity on constant display when he finally found himself in a crisis he couldn't run away from. One easily disproven stupid lie after another. Each contradicting the previous stupid lie. Only harper's extreme shamelessness allowed him to stand in the House of Commons and  utter these idiocies one after the other without throwing up.

I think Harris goes too easy on Helena Guergis and Rahim Jaffer. Although it was nice (a little) to read that she vocally expressed her disapproval of harper's evil-asshole decision to de-fund "Sisters in Spirit." It seems to me though, that Jaffer was probably engaged in some shady business and the fact of the matter is that a guy from a "law and order/lock 'em up" political party to be driving drunk with cocaine in his car is total hypocrisy. Not enough is said about this sickening double-standard. Also, regarding her alleged meltdown at a Maritime airport, Harris relies on the word of Peter Mansbridge, who says he saw the video footage and that it was nothing remarkable. Mansbridge isn't someone whose opinion I respect.

I wish Harris wrote with more vitriol about the vile and sickening election fraud perpetrated by the harpercons in the 2011 election. And I wish he were more sceptical of everyone he wrote about. I think Sona, Prescot, harper, ... all of them, the whole damned bunch, were guilty of violations. Being scum-bags, the bigger players made Sona the fall-guy, and Sona had to balance his fury at their betrayal with his understanding that they'd really make him suffer if he lashed out. Furthermore, the bullshit inquiry into the scandal is not described for the travesty that it was. This was one of the lowest points.

The part about harper's sickening betrayal of wounded veterans is done very well. You really do get a sense of what total slime-balls, thugs, liars and hypocrites they harper government was.

There's more I could type. But I'm bored. I also planned on quoting from some stupid "conservative" fuckwads who gave the book a one-star rating on amazon and go to town on them. Instead I'll just say that these idiots are irredeemable. They fart out stuff like "Harris just doesn't like Harper so instead of facts he provides page after page of innuendo and smear."

The goddamned facts are right on the pages in front of them but they're too stupid, partisan and deluded to see them.

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

War in Syria: Where are the protesters?

"The United States is at war with Syria. Though few Americans wanted to face it, this has been the case implicitly since the Obama administration began building bases and sending Special Ops, really-not-there, American troops, and it has been the case explicitly since August 3, 2015, when the Obama administration announced that it would “allow airstrikes to defend Syrian rebels trained by the U.S. military from any attackers, even if the enemies hail from forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.” With the U.S. Air Force—under Trump, following Obama’s declared policy—shooting down a Syrian plane in Syrian airspace, this is now undeniable.  The United States is overtly engaged in another aggression against a sovereign country that poses no conceivable, let alone actual or imminent, threat to the nation. This is an act of war."

Read the whole thing. The answer to the question about where the protests are is that, while they'll never admit it, the leaders of the "Let's mill about peacefully in pubic for an afternoon to demonstrate how we feel" crowd have realized that this "tactic" (or whatever you want to call it) simply doesn't work.

And so, they're all out of ideas. 

I have ideas. But they'd take work. And nobody's in any position to do any work.

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Comparing Corbyn and Trudeau

Martin Lukacs has an editorial in The Guardian in which he says that Justin Trudeau is a counterfeit progressive. He wins accolades from the international press for his "sunny ways," which appears to be mouthing progressive rhetoric and/or lying while being very, very handsome. Corbyn, meanwhile, was written off as fringe, unelectable, unstable and charmless.

Some liberal/Liberals here in Canada have taken Corbyn's recent success and linking it to the Trudeau majority as the sign of a progressive wave. Lukacs (and I agree with him) doesn't think much of Trudeau though:

Now that Corbyn has upended the rules that govern electoral life in the west, it will help us see Trudeau in proper perspective: as a smooth-talking centrist who has put the most coiffed gloss yet on the bankrupt and besieged neoliberalism of the age.
Trudeau’s coronation as a champion of everything fair and decent, after all, has much to do with shrewd and calculated public relations. I call it the Trudeau two-step.
First, he makes a sweeping proclamation pitched abroad – a bold pledge to tackle austerity or climate change, or to ensure the rights of refugees or Indigenous peoples. The fawning international coverage bolsters his domestic credibility.
What follows next are not policies to ambitiously fulfill these pledges: it is ploys to quietly evacuate them of any meaning. The success of this maneuver – as well as its sheer cynicism – has been astonishing.
In this manner, Trudeau has basically continued, and in some cases exceeded, the economic agenda of Conservative Stephen Harper: approved mega fossil fuel projects, sought parliamentary power grabs, cut-back healthcare funding and attacked public pensions, kept up the dispossession of Indigenous peoples, undermined the prospect of universal childcare, maintained tax loopholes for the richest, and detained and deported thousands of migrants.
Out of breath? He has also broken an electoral reform promise, initiated a privatization scheme that is a massive corporate handout, left un-repealed a Tory political spy bill, launched air strikes in Iraq and Syria despite pledging a withdrawal, and inked the largest-ever weapons deal with the brutal, misogynistic Saudi Arabian regime.
Not exactly what those who voted for “real change” were expecting? Before you answer, here’s something titillating to distract and disarm you: Justin and Barack Obama rekindling their progressive bromance at an uber-cool Montreal diner. Jeremy Corbyn has shown us the meaning of a politics of genuine hope: what Trudeau has deployed has only ever been a politics of hype.
Trudeau’s latest progressive posturing is over foreign policy. Last week his government announced, to wide-spread acclaim, a brave course for their military that is independent of the reviled US administration. Except they will boost wasteful military spending by more than $60bn, a shocking seventy percent budgetary increase, and are already entertaining new Nato missions — exactly as Donald Trump has demanded. The doublespeak seems to have escaped the navel-gazing pundits: this is utter deference masquerading as defiance.
Did you read that Trudeau-bots? Trudeau-Bro's and Trudeau-Sis's? Did you read those links? This isn't about only having had two years to undo stephen harper's damages. Some of those things were new policies that are terrible. And some things, Trudeau hasn't even pretended to do anything about (such as the draconian spy-bill C-51).

I can barely stomach the NDP. And in some cases, they've been worse than the Liberals. I saw so little difference in them that i voted Liberal last time. I'm thinking of not voting ever again.

But let's not fool ourselves that Trudeau is our friend. He's a bullshit artist. As I said here, being socially liberal is irrelevant to the project of capitalism. And capitalism requires imperialism. Hence all the US-initiated wars around the word and Canada's role as camp-follower.

Corbyn is the real deal. A leftist stalwart who never expected to be leader of the Labour Party but who has been embraced by the millions of ordinary people fucked-over by the system and sickened unto puking from the oily deluded Blairites.

That, by the way, is the proper Labour leader to link Trudeau to. Tony Blair. And years from now, he'll be just as rotten as Blair is.

Sunday, June 18, 2017

Murderous "Bernie-Bro's"

So, the racist scum-bag who knifed three guys trying to stop his harassment of a Muslim woman on a Portland train (killing two and wounding one) was found to be a Bernie Sanders supporter. Then, a week or two later, the guy who shot the Republican politicians who were trying to practice baseball (between helping Wall Street rob people and helping health insurance companies kill people when all their money is gone) was also a Sanders supporter.

What does this prove? The innate pathological violence of the Left that right-wing trolls are always mentioning (when they're not saying how they'll make our blood run in the streets)?


It remains the case that people whose main concerns are economic justice and individual equality are, on average, less violent than people whose main concerns are individual profit and race wars.

The Portland murderer's defining traits were stupidity and the subsequent insanity that springs from such an intense level of mental deficiencies. His racism and his conspiracy theories were the biggest factors driving him. He would probably be appalled at Sanders' deep commitment to the Civil Rights struggle, but he also would have liked Sanders' clear condemnation of Wall Street criminals. The Nazis in Germany had many followers who saw themselves as "little people" being victimized by corporate elite interests. (Especially those run by Jews!) But their political-economic analysis is marred by their stupidity and so they embrace fascism. Which is what fascism is: Socialism for stupid people.

The baseball field killer was a violent man. Spousal abuse, attacking his neighbours. He had a history of mental instability. (None of which prevented him from legally owning the weapons he took with him to Washington D.C.) Such a man is still capable of seeing if a group of people (such as Republican politicians) are antithetical to his own best interests.

This is what I mean when I say that we shouldn't get stupid (or insane) people angry. Your average Toronto Sun reader might be occasionally obnoxious and irritating, but as long as they have a job and a decent income, their antisocial tendencies tend to stay under wraps. But stir-up a bullshit war with "Islam" (through Zionism and the deliberate encouragement of Jihaadist groups for other twisted reasons) and so many of these people will start braying out their Islamophobic nonsense. Fuck-up the economy and deprive them of employment and protect the capitalist criminals who exploit them, and they'll start to get murderously desperate.

I had thought that Donald Trump would at least have made token efforts to bring back manufacturing jobs and bring down pharmaceutical costs. I would never have voted for the dunce if I was a US-American, but i thought he'd make a show of trying. But he's done the exact opposite. And the rest of his party never even promised to do those things.   Both Obama and Hillary Clinton remained steadfast in their devotion to job-destroying corporate rights deals and to cossetting Wall Street criminals and other parasite scum. Therefore things have gotten horrible.

And things will only get worse since we, as a people, as a species, are too stupid to change.

Monday, June 12, 2017

10,000 BC

"10,000 BC" is a silly movie. It's got an 8% rating on "Rotten Tomatoes" (meaning it's ROTTEN). I bought it for a few bucks back when I liked to get high and watch CGI. I have a bunch of such DVDs and I now only pull them out when the internet is down or so fucking slow that it might as well be down. I have stuff playing in the background as i work on my comics. And I'm usually high when I'm drawing. So I've now seen "10,000 BC" twice. Here's the things I like about it:

I don't believe in magic but I think it's neat how there's a witch in the tribe who looks Neanderthal. As if that lost race had magical powers. She's "the last of her kind."

The tribe is only partially white. The older warrior appears to be of some Central Asian ethnicity. The young tag-a-long is mixed-race. Sure the hero is obviously white. But I can see a director faced with a choice of a white male hero or not getting funding for the movie at all.

It throws in a nod to "Androcles & The Lion" as one of the things that helps the hero.

The slaves are working on a variant of "The Tower of Babel." Which happened a long time ago.

I thought those giant birds that chase them were creepy.

I thought it a neat device to have the "god king" being attended to by slaves who had been blinded, thus preserving his remoteness and authority.

I didn't like it that the slave-owning urban elites were portrayed as effeminate, "decadent" perverts while the tribal people were all stalwart heterosexuals.

The slave-driver who kidnaps the love interest occasionally brought some decent facial expressions to his role.

There was another nod to an iconic ancient legend, but I can't remember it now.

Don't see this movie. You'll be pissed-off with me if you do.

Sunday, June 11, 2017

Oh Those Fucking "Conservatives"!

I'd never heard of Katie Hopkins before. Apparently she's a British right-wing racist scribbler, known for her "outrageous" outbursts of stupid bigotry. (A UK version of uber-hypocrite shit-stain Ann Coulter.) But she took it too far when in the wake of the Manchester concert bombing she tweeted a call for a "Final Solution" to the "problem" of the existence of Muslim people. Supposedly she came to her senses soon afterwards and deleted the tweet but many had seen it by that point and saved screen-shots. Hopkins was fired by her employer, radio station LBC.

Reading that story at the link led to another suggested link wherein a writer goes to interview Ms. Hopkins over lunch to see if she's really as angry as she seems, or whether she's just trolling, or what:

[I can't decide which of the several quotes I should pick to go into detail on, so I'll just put a bunch of them down all in a row and provide my overall take on them:]

... When tens of thousands of people bay for Hopkins’ blood and exhaust dictionaries finding new ways to deride her, she laughs and cheerfully fires out a tweet about how migrants are of equal worth to the contents of a vacuum cleaner bag, or something.How can someone be so fireproof?“You haven't separated what you've written from your writing,” she advises. “For me the thing that would hurt me is if people suggested that I was bad at writing.”...I ask about this separation she sees between herself and what she writes.“It’s massive, massive. I completely separate the two things. So here's my view that I'm purporting [not sure if that was a malapropism, but it was a good one if so] through copy or radio, and here's the way I've written it.“Now if I can draw you through 500 words I've done a great job. If you don't agree with my view at the end of those, that's great too, that's fine, but if I've got you through an issue that you don't agree with me on, that's good writing. For me I can see a distance between ‘this is what I've written’ and ‘this is me the person’.”I counter that your writing should be inextricable from you, which I think she finds quite darling....It’s incredibly incendiary wording, but she maintains everything she writes she believes, and that she isn’t a troll.“I really believe the stuff I say. Yes, there is definitely this gap, but it’s not a gap between 'Oh she's controversial for a reason and this is the real Katie' - it’s not that kind of a gap - it's a gap between a very public RAAGH RAAGH RAAGH Katie versus this super private person behind a wall.”...Her second husband, ‘lovely Mark’ as he’s known, is apparently the polar opposite to her - quiet, and culturally and politically liberal. “People say to my husband 'Oh I didn't think you'd be married to that’.” It’s an unlikely dynamic, but it seems to work. “I married myself the first time round and that was really bad, a terrible thing to do.”...Contrary to what you might expect, Hopkins is very genial in person. She is polite, courteous and unpatronising. If you had no prior knowledge of her on first meeting, you would never expect her to be the kind of person who discounts other humans on name alone.This could be evidence that the belligerent Hopkins we see in the media is a facade, but I don’t actually believe she is a troll. To answer my original question, the Katie Hopkins ranting on This Morning is the same Katie Hopkins sat in front of me, albeit with the volume turned down somewhat.

So, to sum up; Hopkins really is murderously bigoted, but in her private life she's quieter about it. And her husband, is apparently, diametrically opposed to his wife's core beliefs, but they "click" and so it's all good. Me, I've never understood how one could make a life partner out of someone whose views you find repugnant, as is the case with the husband here. But I think that I understand Hopkins' ability to do that. She's too intellectually and emotionally shallow to grasp how hateful and vile her views are. Somehow she's able to compartmentalize her racist bigotry and general "conservative" stupidity and appreciate her "darling" liberal husband and be an agreeable lunch companion to a non-threatening liberal reporter. Because, unlike myself and anyone else with a higher degree of empathy than she possesses, Hopkins simply has no clue about what words and ideas really mean.

But this is shameful:

Admitting to being a troll would obviously be career suicide though and is something I’m not going to get her to do (not that I’m convinced she is one), so I get back to the abuse thing. Has she become de-sensitised to it through the prism of the internet?“I think that's super true, being anti-my opinions or views, I'm impervious to it all.” Hopkins rationalises the bile she receives through the belief that her detractors simply aren’t smart enough to critique her properly. “They don't mean they want to rape you with a machete, they mean they really want you to shut up, they just didn't have the language,” she says. “They all go under that folder in my head - ‘didn't have the language, should have tried harder at English, what a shame’. I slide it all away.”
Now, anyone who reads this blog knows that I have a fair degree of hatred for a lot of people. But I do not post murderous fantasies. One, because they're illegal, and (more importantly) because I don't relish the idea of physically harming anyone. I'd like to see stephen harper in prison and Ezra Levant unemployed and destitute. But not harmed. I'd like them to learn from their mistakes. Or at least give those shit-heads the chance to learn.

Speaking of Ezra Levant: More stuff ---- Porter Airlines has joined a growing list of companies pulling their advertising from Levant's hate/propaganda-site. Like most career criminals and con-artists, Ezra pulls the race card, whining about anti-Semitism. Pathetically, he calls for a boycott of Porter Airlines. I read about Levant's response in the free Sun News daily "24 Hours." I can't find a link for it, but trust me, if you were the typical proto-fascist dullard who agrees with their shit, you wouldn't be able to figure out that Levant is the one reacting. It's written as if he's targeted Porter.

It's sad that Canadian journalism is so debased that people are forced to write such drivel. Or, what's more likely, that Canadian society and humanity in general are so debased that we produce people who believe in all the shit that Ezra Levant and Sun News push out.

Sunday, June 4, 2017

Terrorism in the UK

So, apparently there was a terrorist attack on London Bridge carried out with a van and knives. A suicide attack. Then there was the Manchester concert bombing.

Now, we know that the alleged perpetrator of the Manchester bombing was the member of a family of anti-Qaddafi Islamic extremists and that their war against the Libyan dictator was aided and abetted by British intelligence. This was "blow-back" of the most obvious kind.

Time for some creative speculation: It seems to me that there are terrorists in the UK who have been assisted by British government/police/intelligence services for years now. They are being allowed to carry out their campaigns against secular Arab rulers. Obviously, the British police and military also hunt them down and kill them. Both of these sets of facts are true. These are crazy people we're talking about.

We know for a fact that terrorism is a manufactured product courtesy of Washington-led imperialism. Saudi Arabia is the biggest fomenter of the kind of terrorism we're fixated on and it is a coddled ally. Washington deliberately arms and funds these groups to target regimes that they don't like. Terrorism is also the big excuse for violating our liberties and our rights. (They say they have to "keep us safe" from the monster they've created and sustain. They also expand the definition of "terrorism" to include political protest.)

We know that police forces and other institutions of state violence and coercion have received ample funding and new powers since this whole farce took off in 2011. They are going to be devastated should it come to an end.

Is it possible that all of these deluded scum-bags are fearful of the rise in the polls of Labour's Jeremy Corbyn? He who promises an end to the nonsense that is the "War on Terror"? If these imbeciles imagine that terrorist attacks will work as in the past, they will allow/engage in them, and then the status-quo Tories can chant "only we can keep you safe." But that didn't work after Manchester and Labour is now ahead of the Tories in some polls (in comparison to 20 percent behind before the snap election was called). Corbyn hasn't drunk from the kool-aid and he meant what he said when he said the current response isn't working. The Terrorist-Police-Industrial Complex doesn't know anything else though, so they launched a quickie attack using ready-at-hand weapons such as knives and vans. Now cancelling the election was floated but abandoned.

These are desperate, fucked-up times.

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Operation Medusa

Recently, hysterical Liberal Party hack Montreal Simon had been swooning about attacks against Liberal Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan. Apparently Sajjan wilfully overstated his role in the planning of one of the Canadian Forces' biggest operations; "Operation Medusa." Now, some political columnists who I tend to respect (and you can check this blog and find out that I do respect several of them) said that this was a pretty serious faux-pas on Sajjan's part. Obviously, the Opposition parties, being who they are, were out for blood. Was that fair? I don't know. Sometimes when you lie on your resume and it's found out, that can get you fired, even if you had been doing good in the actual job. To lie about your contribution to a major initiative as Sajjan did would be similar I suppose. To tell you the honest truth, I'm not sure where I stand on that issue. Perhaps that makes me a racist? But I don't care too much about this incident wherein the Defence Minister is a fabulist.

Because when I read the words "Operation Medusa" this is what I think of:

Razik’s clandestine smuggling operations have spilled over into the allied fight against the Taliban, thereby bolstering the widely held perception that the ISAF and the central government are favoring certain tribes and marginalizing others. Soon after he assumed power at the border, Razik began to feud with elements of the Noorzai tribe, particularly the Sultanzai, a rival smuggling clan spread between Spin Boldak and Chaman. One notorious incident took place during the summer of 2006 in Panjwaii District, a volatile area just west of Kandahar city. A predominantly Noorzai district, Panjwaii is a lush river valley crisscrossed by thick orchards and mud-walled compounds, and it provides an excellent springboard for attacks on Kandahar city. During the course of the summer, Taliban fighters had infiltrated the valley, and eventually the district governor, an Achakzai, called in Abdul Razik’s border force.
What followed was a debacle. The Noorzais, fearing their tribal enemies, rose up and joined forces with the Taliban. Razik and his men responded to the unexpected resistance with brutality. “They were killing women and children,” said Ustaz Abdul Halim, a Noorzai and former mujahideen commander who lives in Kandahar city. “After that, everyone was with the Taliban.”
Capitalizing on the tribal dynamics, the Taliban installed a Noorzai, Mullah Rauf Lang, as their commander in Panjwaii District. Later that fall, newly arrived Canadian troops in the area would launch Operation Medusa, a large-scale assault that killed hundreds of fighters and scores of civilians in weeks of close combat and withering bombardments. Today, the area remains one ofthe most violent in Kandahar Province—the Canadians suffer many of their casualties there and have recently abandoned two untenable forward operating bases in the area—and anti-government sentiments still run high.
Warmaking trumps "reconstruction" In early September, the 2,300 Canadian troops in Kandahar launched a massive ground assault in Panjwaii district, code-named "Operation Medusa" and backed by U.S. troops and airpower. Residents were warned in advance of the offensive to leave their homes and villages.
The assault was declared a huge success several weeks later. "More than one thousand" enemy fighters were said to be killed. But reporters saw few bodies of resistance fighters.
Canadian and NATO authorities admitted that fighters had staged an orderly retreat and appealed for more troops into the area. Canada quickly dispatched several hundred more soldiers, and for the first time it will be deploying tanks. Deadly attacks on Canadian and other NATO forces resumed within days of the "victory."
Meanwhile, some 20,000 residents were made homeless after their homes, villages and crops were destroyed in the fighting. Winter is approaching and they face an uncertain future.

[Please note: The above quotes are not my own. They're pasted from my original blog posts wherein the original sources are linked. In case anyone thinks I'm overstating my contributions here.]

Also, given Sajjan's relatively high rank in the field, what did he know about our detainee policy wherein Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin stated every single one of the prisoners we handed over to the Afghan authorities was tortured? We were all pretty riled-up about that issue when harper was the enemy. Perhaps Sajjan could now shed some light on the subject?

Or not.

Anyway, Niki Ashton for PM!

Saturday, May 13, 2017

Bob Cesca: Stupid Fucking Liberal

Bob Cesca thought he was going to make a clever point about the "extremes" of the right and the left in the US of A. He talks about how both serial sexual predator Bill O'Reilly, and generally decent liberal sap John Oliver, both paint a harsh picture of Barack Obama:

On one hand, there was Bill O'Reilly who continued to push for a stronger response to Islamic jihad. Not only should the president seek to hire a mercenary army of 25,000 privateers, but we should also somehow recruit Zombie Patton to roll into Syria with the Third Army from 1944 and annihilate everyone in sight. The takeaway is the usual one: the president is a weak-willed, lead-from-behind appeaser with obvious terrorist sympathies. Indeed, some factions of O'Reilly's side of the debate even believe Obama is offering up a swath of land in New Mexico as an ISIS safe-haven. I'm not making that up.
On the other hand, there's the former correspondent for The Daily Show, John Oliver, who hosted a 13-minute segment Sunday night in which he deliberately scared the shit out of his audience regarding Obama's unprecedented use of predator drones against terror targets overseas. Not only did Oliver point out that Obama has ordered exponentially more drone strikes than George W. Bush (Oliver failed to note Bush's use of other weapons to achieve the same results), but he also repeatedly emphasized that Obama has literally ruined clear, blue skies -- terrorizing grandmothers and children in the process, and making them look forward to cloudy days when drones are grounded. I'm not making that up, either.
Zubair said that fear over the drone attacks on his community have stopped children playing outside, and stopped them attending the few schools that exist. An expensive operation, needed to take the shrapnel out of his leg, was delayed and he was sent back to the village until his father could raise the money, he said.
“Now I prefer cloudy days when the drones don’t fly. When the sky brightens and becomes blue, the drones return and so does the fear. Children don’t play so often now, and have stopped going to school. Education isn’t possible as long as the drones circle overhead.”
Now, Bob Cesca makes a pretty decent living from his stupid, ignorant scribblings. If I made the money he did, i would AT LEAST do the amount of research that I put into an unpaid blog post. For fuck's sake! John Oliver includes the testimony of the 13-year old from Pakistan saying he no longer prefers blue skies, but now he prefers cloudy skies, in his segment!

Read again how Cesca describes serial killer Obama's killing spree:

"Sunday night in which he deliberately scared the shit out of his audience regarding Obama's unprecedented use of predator drones against terror targets overseas."

"Terror targets"! The stupid fuck! Slightly more research (like, say LISTENING to what John Oliver says in the presentation you're critiquing) would tell you that they kill people based on their being the same fucking height as an actual "terror suspect." It goes as murderously wrong as killing three men in a junkyard foraging for scrap metal because one of them was tall and thin like Osama bin Laden. (We all know of bin Laden's passion for scrap metal dealing before he was allegedly gunned-down and had his hands chopped off and his body dumped in the sea out of respect for Muslim customs.)

Cesca goes on to provide a more nuanced description of Obama's bloodlust than those provided by the imbecile rapist O'Reilly and John Oliver. But by this point, Cesca has revealed himself to be a shit-head with a shaky grasp of reality so who cares?

Thursday, May 11, 2017

Civilization is Doomed: Part III

Last time I talked about the weakness of Trump's opponents among the Republicans. Today I'll talk about the weakness of his rival from the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton. Yes, yes. Hillary won the popular vote. But that doesn't decide US presidential elections. Hillary knew that. By the rules of the game she agreed to play, she lost. She lost to a widely unpopular, appalling, narcissistic ignoramus. Why did she lose? Because people were either disgusted with her, or with the whole rigged game she represented. Blacks voted for Barack Obama but with less enthusiasm the second time around. Because Barack Obama did very little for them. They saw even less reason to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Now, a lot of liberals and fraudulent progressives keep nattering on about how we have to choose the "lesser of two evils" and that Hillary Clinton was the lesser evil to Donald Trump. Personally I've never denied that Donald Trump is obnoxious and vile. Also, he is, as I've said before, a con-man. He's clearly extremely sexist and racist. Hillary is not sexist. She is not obnoxious.  But she is an insane war-monger. Far worse than Trump. And that ought to count for something. Death by nuclear missile is death, even if it's a composed, slightly stilted, female career politician who has brought it to you, rather than a ranting, ignoramus real-estate developer. Okay? Death is death. And all those liberal hypocrites trashing people who voted for Trump thinking he'd bring factories back and who forgave him his racism because of that, .... well those liberals are obviously okay with the death and trauma inflicted on Libyans and Syrians and Iraqis and Hondurans and etc., by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

But working-class Trump voters, voting against their own self-interest? Yes they were. But in thinking he would bring the jobs back they were making a positive decision as opposed to voting for the job-destroying status-quo that Clinton represented. It's become depressing for me to go on the internet and read supposedly left-wing/progressive Canadians, so infected with Trump Derangement Syndrome that they're standing-up for goddamned NAFTA. It's even worse with the US-Americans who now believe that Obama's insane claims to have the right to assassinate people without trial and his drone strikes and his support for autocrats, and his protecting of Wall Street criminals, and his adherence to anti-worker trade deals, and etc., etc., were all the progressive policies of a progressive friend to working people.

They were not. Obama was lying to the US-American electorate from the start. And progressives need to learn this and feel this and absorb this and incorporate it into their analysis if they don't want to continue to marginalize themselves.
Remember that not even a year after the taxpayer took the brunt of the damage from the banks’ idiotic gamble on subprime loans, he was out there inspiring rallies of people with his talk of hope and change, but at the exact same time as he was promising the American people that he would take Wall Street to task, in private he was allowing Citigroup to handpick his cabinet.
Just let that sink in for a minute. He was out there galvanizing and re-energizing the whole progressive movement, commanding giant rallies of people with his inspiring words and heartfelt promises, but at the very same time, he was emailing Wall Street to get their list for his cabinet appointments. Remember, this email wasn’t after he’d won. He’d engaged in this transaction while he was still campaigning, still sucking up every bit of hope America had for reversing the ravages of neoliberalism. He. Was. Lying.
You see, there are a lot of stupid people out there. Stupid people tend to be racist. They believe in stupid things. When things go bad for them, they lash out in stupid ways, attacking the wrong people. They attack the people who elites dupe them into hating; socialists, feminists, minorities, LGBT, environmentalists. You don't want to get these people enraged. Unfortunately, if you lie to yourself and others that Obama and the Clintons were their friends and that they were progressives, you commit yourself to perpetuating the economic system that has gotten all the stupid people riled up. And so, society becomes increasingly polarized and fascistic.

The same goes, to a lesser degree to ignorant people. Ignorant people don't pay attention. They don't go out of their way to find out stuff. They pick up information from the general environment, which in our case, is the corporate-dominated news and celebrity drivel. As such, they'll sympathize with white male privilege, capitalist propaganda and other traditionally dominant bullshit. And it doesn't help that progressive frauds and liberal hacks are themselves peddling obvious bullshit. Telling them that a job-destroying, mass murdering Wall Street imperialist shill is their progressive friend, if such nonsense does penetrate their bubble, reality itself will discredit the message and you've lost a potential supporter for real change.

The most depressing thing for me though is the liberals' hysterical ranting about Russia. Until the end of time it will be true that Trump calling for better relations with Russia was one of the only sane things he ever said. And yet, shit-head liberals have bought-in completely to the idea that Trump is Putin's puppet, and that there's clear evidence that they colluded to steal the 2016 election. Yes, yes. It was awful of Wikileaks to expose Hillary Clinton's corruption and how she stole the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders so that she, the super-unpopular, uninspiring career hack politician could run a shitty campaign and lose to the dangerous imbecile Trump. It doesn't matter that there's no evidence of collusion. It doesn't matter that the deranged ranting of US-American liberals about this collusion is rancid hypocrisy given the USA's blatant meddling in elections and politics worldwide, including Russia's. It doesn't matter that without a clear electronic trail there is only conjecture and conspiracy theories. In fact, the absence of a clear electronic trail pretty much means that there was no collusion or at least that there is no real evidence of it. It's like accusing someone of shooting someone else to death only there's no gun and no bullet.

Fuck-you. All of you stupid liberals. You literally make me nauseous.

Civilization is doomed because you can't escape from the empty binary of Democrat-vs-Republican. You will cheer on nuclear war if your partisan blinders tell you to do that. You will resign yourselves that decades of anti-worker/anti-environment/anti-human economic policies are "progressive" just because someone from your team is implementing them. I'll leave it at that. This is depressing to write about.

Monday, May 1, 2017

Civilization is Doomed: Part II

Yesterday I wrote about some of the reasons why Donald Trump was popular among a certain segment of the US-American population. (And having met Canadian Trump supporters personally, I can attest to this not being a specifically US-American phenomenon.) These people are ignorant. Ignorant of Trump's sleazy con-man past. Ignorant of the true nature of their country's (and the world') political-economic structure. Many of them are racist. Many of them are stupid. Many of them are gullible: "Hey! The famous rich white guy from the TV is saying he'll bring our jobs back!" They are impressed with the gaudy trappings of Trump's wealth and fame.

(I also started that post with a reference to our planet's place in the galaxy. The point of that was to eventually demonstrate that this single case of sentient life in the vastness of space-time might possibly be extinguished. We are too stupid a species to survive. We were able to build the capability to win the struggle for survival for several centuries, but in the end, we weren't wise enough to control our creations. Trump's election is a symptom of that fatal flaw.)

Now I'm going to write about another factor contributing to Trump's tepid victory. The low quality of his opposition. This began with his rivals in the Republican Party. It was a clown car, but I'll only deal with the few that I remember.

Marco Rubio - the boy senator from Florida.

Now listen; the Republican Party of the United States is a vast apparatus of creeps, crooks, closet-cases and cadavers. Racist too. They blatantly service the rich and base their appeals to the chumps in the grassroots by appealing to their bigotry and their religious and patriotic delusions. Such an institution is inherently incapable of producing anyone of talent or ability. "Rising stars" within the party (such as Rubio was) are inevitably going to be sleazy imbeciles. Which is what Rubio was. Lazy, entitled, stupid. Rubio wanted to talk about his memorized talking points about free trade and tax-cuts, but Trump managed to turn the conversation about how much Rubio sweated on stage and made allusions to Rubio having a small penis. When Rubio saw that Trump's buffoonery was helping Trump in the polls, he tried to respond in kind, but only embarrassed himself further.

(It should be noted that Trump was assailed on all sides for having relatively small hands. Some did this to imply that his penis was also relatively stunted, while others piled on only because the insult was known to infuriate him. Unlike most top-tier politicians, Trump was unashamed to stand on a national stage and confront the issue head-on ... so to speak ... by telling America and the world that he had, in fact, a big penis. And his supporters, hearing this, and perhaps recalling the string of beautiful trophy wives he has had, replacing them with younger versions as the years pass, probably thought to themselves: "I bet he's tellin' the truth 'bout having a big dick." ....... Such was and is the level of political debate in that wretched land.)

Ben Carson - At one time a talented neurosurgeon, Carson was either an idiot-savant or, more likely, some sort of affliction caused him to lose his fucking mind.

Carson is Black. So his candidacy gave the less-racist portion of the Repuglican base the opportunity to say: "See?!? We're not racist! If a Black fellah becomes a famous doctor and tells other Black people to smarten-up and work hard and praise Jesus, he's okay with us!"

For about a week, Carson was one of the front-runners. But a series of truly bizarre, idiotic statements about the pyramids of Ancient Egypt, crime, and other topics subjected him to increased scrutiny. Carson was clearly not used to explaining the strangely shaped turds that dropped out of his mouth and he soon grew tired of it all and retreated back into irrelevance.

Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz is, apparently a naturally unlikable guy. I mean, I don't like oily, capitalist shills with a hypocritical devotion to Christian delusions, so I don't like Ted Cruz. But apparently his own fellow travellers hate him. They can't stand him. A former college roommate described him as one of the most nasty people he'd ever met. Watching him during the primaries, you got a sense of this. Somehow, every word, every action, magically appeared to turn out the worse for him. His young daughter scowling and trying to avoid a kiss from him. Punching his wife in the face as he tried to raise their arms in a gesture of triumph. Knocking his chosen running-mate (former failed CEO and then failed primary candidate Carly Fiorina) off the stage in yet another attempt to portray campaign exuberance. Things just don't seem to go right for the guy. His physical actions back-fire. His spoken words grate. I'm surprised he's come as far in life as he has.

But Cruz, like Carson, Rubio, Rick (butt-splooge) Santorum, Chris Christie, Fiorina, ... the whole stable of Trump's repug opponents, had the problem of campaigning on an extremist version of the neo-liberal snake-oil that both they and the Democrats had imposed on the US electorate and which had become toxic. Semi-veiled appeals to racist bigotry, hatred of the poor and unemployed, homophobia and "Christian" values were having less and less effect as more and more voters were abandoning racism, homophobia and religion, and more and more of them were struggling in the face of job losses, wage stagnation and the systemic criminality of the US economy.

In the face of Trump's decades of celebrity, his flaunting of opulence and sex (of his trophy wives and his public appearances with beautiful women), and, most importantly, his populist calls for forcing capitalists to bring the jobs back to America, get tough with the pharmaceutical industry, ... they had no chance. But they couldn't even keep the racist vote because, unlike Trump, they often tried to veil their racism. Trump embraced it full on, allowing him to get both the votes of ordinary right-wing US-Americans and the racists (including actual self-described fascists). This came easy for Trump because he is a bona-fide racist. He was one of the biggest brain-farts of the whole "birther" conspiracy, saying that Barack Obama could not be President because he was Black born outside the USA in Kenya.

Well, that's all the time I've got now. Part III to come. Eventually.

Sunday, April 30, 2017

Civilization is Doomed: Part I

It's the joke of the galaxy, if not the universe! There's a planet halfway outside one of the spiral arms of the Milky Way, where intelligent life arose. The turn of events made it so that the USA became the greatest power of all the competing groups of the human life form. Its culture was the dominant culture. If humanity was to become united, one species, self-governing, the USA would have been the leading element at the beginning of this process.

Alas alack! The USA was run by kleptocratic, dogmatic capitaist scumbags and imperialists. "Politics" was "inverted totalitarianism." Make-believe democracy, consisting of empty contests between public relations industry created drones (like Barack Obama) or long-time party-hacks (like John McCain or Hillary Clinton). It was all stage and spectacle. (Something the US-Americans are quite good at.)

But things got out of hand. An "outsider" named Donald Trump, who only hoped to add some further notoriety to his name (with his public persona being a major prop in his "brand" of snake-oil) by running for president, revealed just how shallow, dumbed-down, regressive and ugly US culture had allowed itself to become. First he hired some actors to show up at the NYC skyscraper he owned to cheer him as he rode DOWN an escalator to make his announcement. Late-night comedians laughed.

And why shouldn't they have laughed? Trump is a buffoon. Born with a silver spoon in his mouth. A crass, ugly, pushy real-estate developer, serial bankrupt, corrupt, boorish, racist, sexist, publicity whore, ignorant, arrogant, ... creepy, .... reality-show star. A lot of nothing behind a garish exterior. This move was, obviously, just about keeping Trump's name in the news, because Trump is a character and having that character run for president is a great way to do that.

And, in spite of the fact that Trump won the Repugnican nomination and, through the Electoral College, eventually the presidency, notoriety and publicity WERE the primary reasons for Trump's run.

What he did was ask some political advisors: "What are the rubes all upset about?" He asked this with no previous allegiance to any specific Republican or Democratic policy platform. When his advisors told him that ordinary US-Americans are concerned about jobs being lost to off-shoring, and job losses due to illegal immigrants, and the supposed illegal immigrant crime wave, and the high cost of healthcare, he said he'd reverse off-shoring, make better deals for the people on pharmaceuticals and health care generally, and clamp down on illegal immigration. To this he added his own idiosyncratic take on US foreign policy, to whit; Any idiot can see that the results of US invasions in the Middle East have been disasters. (He didn't know that "managed chaos" is the actual goal of psychopaths like Hillary Clinton and her ilk.) Any idiot can see that military brinkmanship with nuclear-armed Russia is insane. Trump said he'd stay out of further entanglements in the Middle East and pursue better relations with Russia. Then he topped it all off with promises to himself about massive tax-cuts for the super-rich and de-regulation of the economy. Trump also believes that global warming is a hoax, so full-steam ahead for the carbon economy. (In contrast to Obama who reduced US-American reliance on coal while boosting the extraction of other carbon fuels for a net impact on climate change of zero.)

Things didn't go well for Trump at the very beginning. At the very beginning, on the Repug-friendly FOX News Network, right-wing anchorwoman Megyn Kelly asked the ignoramus some questions he wasn't prepared for and he was discomfited. The next day however, the world turned for Trump.

You see, Donald Trump is a rich, white male. He's on the tall side. He's been in the popular culture (to his benefit or not) for decades. He had a highly rated show on that thar tee-vee machine.  To certain impressionable, gullible minds, Trump's CELEBRITY is intoxicating. More intelligent people are dismissive of such empty fame and of such non-accomplishments as being a tall, rich, white man. But that's what makes us such elitist pin-heads. By gawd, Trump is FAMOUS! He was in "Home Alone 2"! He was on "The Cosby Show"! Plus, he's gonna bring our jobs back, kick out the Mexicans, and beat-up the pharmaceutical companies! Oh yeah! And those uppity Blacks declaring war on innocent policemen? He's gonna clamp down on them too! Law and Order!

Trump essentially said that Megyn Kelly was mean to him because she was on her period. FOX News (never particularly concerned with the dignity of their female employees) was deluged with angry criticism from its viewing customers and sided with Trump against Kelly. From then on, it was a wave that Trump rode all the way to White House. (Although the wave just barely got him there. As mentioned, he needed the Electoral College to do it, having lost the popular vote by 3 million.)

Well, I'm bushed. I'll continue part-two tomorrow.

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

Non-Violent Logic

Here's a video of women in India beating up a couple of rapists:


Strange how you can access some videos on YouTube but not via the "blogger" video upload system.

Oh well. Basically, I've seen a few videos of different instances where a large group of Indian women have one or two men, caught in the act of attempted rape, and are beating the men with sticks and any other objects that came to hand. Usually the men have been tied up to something, but I remember one where the man was free, but staggering, and occasionally making a pleading motion with his hands begging the women to stop.

Let's apply some of the standard "logic" of those who subscribe to the dogma of non-violence to pathological levels:

"Those women are 'discrediting' the cause they claim to be fighting for."

How does "don't rape" get "discredited"?? How does that work in practice?

"Those women are no better than the rapists they're attacking."

What a vile thing to say.

"Those women are losing the sympathy of the general public."

This is similar to the first accusation, and is generally what is meant by a cause being "discredited." The cause itself isn't discredited, but it might be in the eyes of those in the general public who haven't yet made up their minds on the issue, thereby decreasing public support for the cause. Of course, in this case, those among the general public who don't have an opinion as to whether rape is bad or not, are probably men. Which makes the statement: "Those women are losing the potential sympathy of men who don't care about rape one way or another."

To which those women would probably reply: "Who cares what they think?"

It's the same with other causes, such as homelessness, corporate human rights abuses, or Nazis. People who haven't decided where they stand on such things are either clueless, ignorant or callous. As such, they have removed themselves from the conversation or they're part of the problem.

"Those women are undermining all the work of non-violent anti-rape activists."


Once again,  I'm not asking people to go out and get their skulls cracked in fights with the cops. I'm not trying to be the Canadian Pol Pot. I'm just trying to gently nudge intellectual support away from the pathological adherence to non-violence that permeates leftist culture, because I think it is self-evidently counterproductive.

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

George W. Bush & Rob Ford

Recently, there's been efforts to rehabilitate the war criminal (and moron) George W. Bush. Supposedly he respected the news media (when he wasn't lying to them about WMDs) and he isn't as obnoxious as Donald J. Trump. Yes, and for this thin gruel we forgive him his criminal war of aggression against Iraq; his vicious racism, his corruption. This lazy, stupid, ignorant man is now an "elder statesman" or something.

Why is so much our political culture self-evidently vile and stupid???

Similarly, the shameless hacks and hypocrites at SUN Media are reflecting fondly on the career of Rob Ford on the first anniversary of his death.

Now, first of all, of these two men, Rob Ford was the better. He might have been a vicious homophobe (and given that he's younger than me, that's inexcusable), and a hypocrite and abusive, but he also had a hard-working side to him. Bush was, and still is, irredeemably lazy. Also, Ford had the "common touch." He genuinely got along with a lot of people. Bush was an arrogant elitist. (Some achievement for an imbecile.) Ford had this endearing fuck-up aspect that charmed many people.

But let's not forget some other not-so-nice parts of our dear, departed ex-mayor. Now, normally, I wouldn't bother to write about Rob Ford, especially critically, now that he's gone. He wasn't a world-historical monster, whose grim legacy has relevance for us all still. But if the Toronto Sun is going to deliberately mythologize the man, and lie about his record and his behaviour, then their bullshit deserves a response.

Let's start with Joe Warmington's "Ford's Influence Still Felt": Around about the middle of the editorial he writes: "The headlines and interest in videos about his addictions are gone." "Videos about his addictions." That could be a video with two doctors talking about the nature of the drugs Ford was taking and their impact upon his health. Or, it could be a fucking video of him smoking fucking crack cocaine that was later used to try to extort money from him. And the newspaper headlines would be about that too. Isn't it goddamned newsworthy when the mayor of Canada's largest city is smoking crack cocaine with gangsters??? Especially a mayor with a stated "zero tolerance for drugs and gangs"?

Warmington continues: "So is the cat-and-mouse game of political opponents and media trying to force him from office." I have to say, Joe, that it's entirely common practice to expect that politicians caught engaging in illegal behaviour tend to resign. If Dennis Miller was caught on tape buying heroin, do you think Toronto City Council would ask only that he "seek help for his demons"? And the other time Ford almost lost power came when he stupidly spoke to and voted on the question of whether he should have to pay a fine. Ie., something on which he had an individual financial interest. This is called "conflict of interest." And he was being fined for hitting up lobbyists to donate to his highschool football charity.

[Now here's the thing about that: I have no doubt that Ford's football charity was legit. I do not believe he used it for personal gain. But it looks bad to ask people coming to City Hall asking for jobs or favours, to hit them up for money. Tolerating what Ford did would allow for all sorts of murky activity. Any idiot who isn't a partisan stooge would see and admit that. That Ford spoke to and voted on whether he should be fined for such behaviour was absolutely atrocious.]

Warmington goes on about how with Ford gone, the free-spending, lazy ways are back. Also: "Political correctness is back with a vengeance."  What the fuck??? Oh my god! "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!!!" Shriek! No! Won't somebody think of the children???

What is the dumb-fuck even talking about with that one?

"He believed every tax dollar was sacred and not to be wasted or squandered."

Except for the multi-million dollar fines he had the city incur for cancelling "Transit City" when shovels had already started digging the ground. Except for burying a report on the Gardiner Expressway because he likes that ugly white elephant and didn't want to have a debate about maybe tearing it down or burying it. And except for all those friends of his who got jobs in his office. And except for those assistants who ran personal errands for him on the taxpayers' dime while he was railing about other councilors buying an espresso machine for their office or a bunny suit to march in a parade.

Another article: "'He was lynched' Mother and brother remember late mayor'"

Now, obviously, someone who married Ford's obnoxious blowhard right-wing father, is going to have loved her obnoxious right-wing son. And she would naturally be hurt by the criticism of her son. But let's face facts: He brought international disgrace to this city. He was a monstrous hypocrite and a fiscal incompetent. Yes, he restrained (some) spending. But he obviously had no clue about the city's finances and would contradict himself as to whether Toronto had a revenue or a spending problem depending upon what he was talking about at the time.

Lastly, Adrienne Batra speculates about what Ford would say about Kathleen Wynne, Justin Trudeau and Donald Trump. Basically it's a bunch of pointless crap with constant references to how careful Ford was with the city's money.

If you want to know how loyal Donald Trump's fans are and will be, look no further than the loyalty of "Ford Nation." You can literally smoke crack with gangsters, after having rejected funding for anti-gang programs as "hug a thug" spending, and get away with it. Ford was a personal disgrace and a disaster as mayor. Do not seek to mythologize or canonize the man.

(I thought this edition of "24 Hours" also had the racist idiot Sue-Ann Levy's sycophantic article about fellow racist idiot Ezra Levant's talk at Ryerson University. But it must have been another one. What scum.)

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Trudeau Killed Electoral Reform

Just a reminder Liberal partisans: Hero boy has a solid majority. harpercon obstruction and NDP lately deciding they'd agree to a referendum were irrelevant in the face of this majority. Like harper with his omnibus bills, the Liberals could have passed anything they had a mind to. But this same solid majority reminded Trudeau and his Liberals why they liked "first past the post." Electoral reform died on election night.

So, any bitching and whining about anybody "splitting the vote" from a Liberal is monstrously hypocritical.

Friday, March 10, 2017

What's Going To Happen To Chris Alexander?

I've loathed Chris Alexander since I'd first heard of his existence, back in 2011. That was when he was first running for office as a Conservative candidate in the riding of Ajax-Pickering. He was saying that torture in Afghanistan wasn't a big issue, even though Afghanistan's entire justice/legal system was rife with abuses from top to bottom.

But, aside from my own misgivings, the meme about him was that he was this "golden boy" diplomat from within Canada's Foreign Affairs Department who brought real ability to his new role as a politician. Obviously, I never saw it and still don't. It seems more likely to me that he was nothing more than a supreme butt-kisser/yes-man who took the position of Canadian Ambassador to Afghanistan because he was determined to make something out of such a hideous job. He was prepared (as so many of his colleagues probably weren't) to turn a blind eye to all the war crimes and other abuses he would (and did) see, and to cheer-lead for whatever brazen hypocrisies the Canadian government of the moment uttered about "the Mission."

Which was why he ignored Richard Colvin's numerous e-mails about how ALL of our detainees were being tortured by their Afghan jailers. He presided over such barbarism and failure for years, and then he parlayed that into a career in politics, eventually rising to become a Cabinet Minister, where he similarly ignored the desperate cries for help of Syrians trying to flee to safe havens after the USA and its allies turned their country into a slaughter-house. Unfortunately for him, this policy of murderous cruelty ended up hurting him when Syrian refugees began washing up dead on the beaches of the Mediterranean in the hundreds as over-crowded, leaking boats they were on sank beneath the waves. And, sadly for Chris, some of them were tiny children, whose parents had tried to apply for refugee status in Canada, and they died during a Canadian federal election. Alexander had to "suspend" his campaigning and go back to Ottawa (ostensibly to "deal" with the crisis, but actually, simply to hide from the media until the storm subsided).

Chris Alexander subsequently lost his seat in that election. And now he is running for leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada. But he isn't doing so well. He's barely registering. He's certain to lose. What then? Back to diplomatic service? Not fucking likely. He's been exposed as a dishonest, partisan rat. A sick joke. (Given his public behaviour, I'm willing to bet Alexander pissed a lot of people off on his way up the ladder.)

Canada is a rich country but we starve our culture. Canadian households spend their money on ordinary things. And Canada's super-rich spend their money on luxury goods and safe investments. That's why former high-ranking politicians often have to take jobs shilling for parasites like the pay-day loan people. Our media is on life-support.

What I'm saying is that the future doesn't look good for ol' Chris Alexander. And I hope it stays that way and he genuinely suffers.

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Glenn Greenwald on the US Democrats

Foolish chump, or mercenary Democratic Party hack Driftglass has a hate-on for Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald is a libertarian don't you know. He isn't a corporate stooge Democrat who mouths platitudes about the working class and minorities like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Therefore his exposes of Obama and Clinton's mass spying and crimes against humanity are of no account.

But I have a helluva lot more respect for Greenwald than I do for Driftglass, so that's why I think it's important to mention Greenwald's latest evisceration of that party's overall uselessness.

The more alarmed one is by the Trump administration, the more one should focus on how to fix the systemic, fundamental sickness of the Democratic Party. That Hillary Clinton won the meaningless popular vote on her way to losing to Donald Trump, and that the singular charisma of Barack Obama kept him popular, have enabled many to ignore just how broken and failed the Democrats are as a national political force.

A failed, collapsed party cannot form an effective resistance. Trump did not become president and the Republicans do not dominate virtually all levels of government because there is some sort of massive surge in enthusiasm for right-wing extremism. Quite the contrary: This all happened because the Democrats are perceived — with good reason — to be out of touch, artificial, talking points-spouting automatons who serve Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the agenda of endless war, led by millionaires and funded by oligarchs to do the least amount possible for ordinary, powerless citizens while still keeping their votes.
Everyone knows the popular cliché that insanity means doing the same thing over and over and expecting different outcomes; it illustrates why Democrats cannot continue as is and expect anything other than ongoing impotence and failure. The party’s steadfast refusal to change course even in symbolic ways — We hereby elevate by acclamation Chuck “Wall Street” Schumer and re-install Nancy “I’m a multimillionaire and we are capitalists” Pelosi — bodes very poorly for its future success.
For the last five years, the face of the DNC was the living, breathing embodiment of everything awful about the party: the sleazy, corrupt corporatist, and centrist hawk Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who — as a result of WikiLeaks’ publication of DNC emails — had to resign in disgrace after she got caught engaging in sustained cheating in order to ensure that Hillary Clinton would be the party’s nominee.
But her disgrace was short-lived: Upon resigning, she was quickly rewarded for her corruption by being named to a high position with the Clinton campaign, as well as having the D.C. establishment Democrats, led by Joe Biden and Clinton herself, support her in vanquishing a Sanders-supported primary challenger for her seat in Congress. As a result of the support from the party establishment (as well as massive funding from corporate and banking interests), she defeated that challenger, Tim Canova, and the nation rejoiced as she returned for her seventh term in Congress.
Perhaps worse than the serial cheating itself was that it was all in service of coronating a candidate who — as many of us tried to warn at the time — all empirical data showed was the most vulnerable to lose to Donald Trump. So the very same people who bear the blame for Trump’s presidency — by cheating to elevate the candidate most likely to lose to him — continue to dominate the Democratic Party. To describe the situation is to demonstrate the urgency of debating and fixing it, rather than ignoring it in the name of talking only about Trump.
So in Tom Perez’s conduct, one sees the mentality and posture that has shaped the Democratic Party: a defense of jobs-killing free trade agreements that big corporate funders love; an inability to speak plainly, without desperately clinging to focus-group, talking-points scripts; a petrified fear of addressing controversial issues even (especially) when they involve severe human rights violations by allies; a religious-like commitment never to offend rich donors; and a limitless willingness to publicly abase oneself in pursuit of power by submitting to an apology ritual for having told the truth.
That is the template that has driven the Democratic Party into a ditch so deep and disastrous that even Vox acknowledges it without euphemisms. That is the template that has alienated voters across the country at all levels of elected office and that enabled the Donald Trump presidency.
If you're interested in a true renewal of the political culture that enabled a Trump victory, you'd do well to take Greenwald's advice.