Mayor of Toronto. When people hear this, they think of a carrot-topped, morbidly obese, hard-working and hard-partying hulk of a man named Rob Ford. And they're right. Rob Ford has practically become a symbol, for better or worse, of Toronto. Ford jokes have become nothing if not a fucking staple on late-night television, and the mere mention of Toronto is enough to get sniggers all round, with perhaps the odd question of, "What's happened to their crackhead Mayor?"
Yet an impartial panel of experts broken down by age and sex (i.e., me---because nobody is more broken down by age and sex than I) has determined that he is by far the most suitable candidate for the job. As for the personality quirks, who doesn't like a Mayor that regularly eats pussy and is proud of it?
I know a lot of people hate Ford owing to his avoidance of the Toronto gay Pride parade. I don't, and here's my reasoning. I am philosophically opposed to any sort of Pride when it comes to sexual orientation, and this purely because what goes on in the bedroom should stay in the bedroom. Although I disagree with homosexual practices, I don't believe it should be a criminal act---but neither do I believe it should be a public affair. On balance, I don't think heterosexual practices should be a public affair neither.
If you're gay/straight/bi/whatever... keep the dancing and kissing and fucking in the clubs and at home. Don't expose the rest of us to your public displays of affection. And don't scream out, "I'm gay and proud to be so!", or, for that matter, "I'm bi/straight/anything with legs and proud to be so!" Furthermore, the Pride parade is anything but family-friendly---like Ford, I find the nudity and the simulated sex acts inappropriate for a city-sponsored event.
If the Mayor should be tradition-bound to participate at a parade, it should be the Orange Order parade, or the Masonic parade. The reason for this is that the history of Toronto is inseparable from that of the Orange Order: until the 1960's, every sitting Mayor of Toronto was a dues-paying member of that fine Protestant institution, and the tradition was a great one. The Orange Order parade is one that is inoffensive to anyone but Irish republicans, obviously family-friendly, and also it is not an eyesore like Pride.
Ford, for all his flaws (and I would certainly not consider eating pussy a flaw), is nothing short of an expert when it comes to financial matters. If anyone hasn't noticed by now, Toronto is in a financial crisis. Rob Ford is the only candidate with the skill to find out what needs cutting, and the balls to say, "Last stop for the gravy train."
He also is the only one with a sensible plan for the Toronto Underground. When compared with other cities of comparable size and demographic in North America (CHICAGO!) and Europe (Vienna or Munich), Toronto has the worst damn Underground system I have ever seen in my life. Even the station design is absolutely terrible.
Allow me to sustain my digression for a bit. The original incarnation of the Toronto Underground system used a public-bathroom aesthetic. This is NOT a bad thing---the tiled look and distinctive font is very pretty. The problem came when the TTC (the commission in charge of the Underground) failed to establish an architecture department, or even an engineering department. So the new stations are a hotch-potch of various designs, including a very kitschy Museum Station.
The only problem with Ford is that he is a walking Public Relations nightmare. He drinks like a fish, eats far in excess of anything a man his size would need, speaks his mind even when the expedient thing would be to lie, and refuses to spend unnecessary cash even when this would be advisable. For instance, Ford declines to use a chauffeur; this despite the fact that he is a busy man and his job description requires reading prior to actually beginning his work day.
This, along with the poll results, has made me fear that Ford will not be elected a second time, which would be a bloody shame. The next-best man is one named John Tory. In the main, he is a good Mayoral candidate as well, with a few important differences to Ford, but also substantially similar in many ways.
Tory, like Ford, is a conservative candidate. This is a good thing. Toronto needs conservatism. The difference is that Rob Ford is the populist candidate, that is, one with a rhetoric appealing to the proletariat/the "working class"; while John Tory is the Establishment candidate, with rather upper-class speech patterns and a polished manner. The content of their agenda, however, is substantially the same; they differ, more or less, in electability and in skill set.
Oh, yes, and in Underground opinion. Ford is by far the best when it comes to the Underground. For Tory, it's merely another campaign point, whereas it's the heart and soul of the race for Rob Ford.
Tory is far more electable among the general middle-to-upper class, over-50 bracket; these are the people that are most reliable and will turn up to elections for certain. On the other hand, Ford has a fan club whose support for him can be characterised as nothing if not rabid. These supporters, however, tend not to be university-educated and tend to be in the lower income brackets; the exception of course are the people from Ford's home town of Etobicoke.
The worst option, and, sadly, a very popular one, is Olivia Chow. Now, I don't say this because she is a woman or a born Hongkie---in fact, I have nothing but the utmost respect for women as well as for everyone from Hongkong (I do love that island!) She represents the (very) liberal side at the campaign, and like most liberals, she is an absolute, total, and utter fool. I loved her (now, sadly, deceased) husband Jack Layton, but Chow is, for better or worse (more worse than better), the Hilary Clinton of Canadian politics. She exerted much backroom influence on Layton, and the majority of this influence was undue and malign.
A simple look at the agenda of these three politicians tells a lot. Ford and Tory share much of the same sane and sober agenda, although they do tend to phrase certain things differently. Ford tells it like it is, while Tory tends to waffle a bit before giving a somewhat wishy-washy reply. Of course, speech patterns matter jack shit; the more important thing is the content.
For instance, Ford is willing to support the (very partial---not more than ten percent) privatisation of the Toronto Hydroelectric Corporation. Tory has reservations about "fire sales" but won't rule anything out. Chow, on the other hand, will not budge an inch and refuses to sell even a single share of Toronto Hydro.
Ford and Tory agree on the extension of the Scarborough Rapid Transit (essentially, a customised Underground) for three more stops. This plan has been approved and fully funded by City Council (in American terms, the Board of Supervisors). They also agree on privatising rubbish collection east of Yonge Street, as was done west of Yonge Street by Ford. Finally, Ford and Tory both want to create a big music festival for Toronto.
Here's where they differ: Ford wants to cut the land transfer tax (good on ya, Rob!) and Tory seems to be a bit wishy-washy as per his usual style, but open to the discussion regardless. Tory and Ford both want to keep property taxes from increasing too much, but the mechanics of their respective plans are somewhat different. Ford wants to expand the Toronto Island airport, whereas Tory still has questions but is open to discussion, as usual.
Chow goes against all of this. She must be mad. First of all, she wishes to scrap the fully-funded and fully-approved Scarborough Rapid Transit extension, and build the cheaper and much less convenient surface rail track in its place, as originally envisioned. Second, she refuses to privatise rubbish collection just yet; this, in Chow speak, means she refuses to privatise it at all. Furthermore, instead of making Toronto better with a music festival like Ford and Tory want to do, she wants to make Toronto worse by pedestrianising a few very busy streets. Chow is firmly for retaining the land transfer tax and property tax as is, and against expanding the Island airport.
In short, Chow wants to return to the Miller days, when City Hall was run by the unions and when the gravy train was just chugging along. We can't have that. Especially not in these days of financial crisis. Please, please, if you're a Torontonian and hate Ford, consider voting Tory. He's a good man and will keep the city running.
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
The year in review
Alright, so, fuck it. I've decided to start blogging again, and since a lot has happened in the Kafkaesque goatfuck that is modern Anglo-Canadian politics, I guess I'll take it one step at a motherfucking time.
First off, the Ontario election. I liked Hudak. I hoped that he'd win. I mean, I know he looks like a weasel but he had a budget plan that involved actually saving money, something that the province of Ontario so desperately needs. The other serious contender was a bull dyke named Kathleen Wynne, whose idea of budgeting was "spend money to save money". I see no problem with that idea, except for EVERY FUCKING WORD OF IT! You can NOT spend money left and right, money that you don't fucking have, and expect any sort of profit on this borrowed dosh to overshadow the inevitable fucking INTEREST that borrowing generates!
Like, look. Two men lose their jobs and need money. They have to make money to survive. One man gets an even more high-paying job, and tightens his belt so this doesn't happen in future. The other man goes to a cash point, withdraws $250 from his Barclaycard, and then says, "Hey, look, I've made money." NO YOU HAVEN'T.
Wynne didn't even spend money where it counts. What she should have spent it on was a tube system for Toronto to rival London's or Manhattan's. Instead, she spent it on giving happy-ending massages to teachers, government sector workers, and the unemployable poor. The majority of this province DOES NOT work for the government... and sinking money into the public school system is never a good idea, since it tends to disappear very quickly.
Oh, yes, and she cancelled two gas plants Ontario desperately needed to save two of her party bootlickers' arses. This had the end phenomenon of a 150% hike in gas prices... because the winter in Ontario was precisely the same as the one that helped defeat Hitler's forces in Russia.
Of course, this useless cunt of a candidate won. Now, I know Ontario voters are a perverse bunch. Never in the history of Ontario has a provincial Prime Minister been of the same party as the national Prime Minister, but for once, couldn't Ontario voters vote with their brains rather than their cocks? They should at least have balanced themselves out so that there was a hung parliament... now she and her gang of knuckleheads can put any bill, even a hare-brained one like the provincial budget, forward and it'll get passed come hell or high water.
Then the whole business with Russia/the Ukraine. Another complete clusterfuck. Now, I understand that Crimea was a gift to Ukraine by Khrushchev, with terms and conditions attached. Ukraine violated those terms and conditions. So I believe that the annexation of Crimea by Russia, especially following a popular fucking referendum, was legal and justified. But the goatfuck currently taking place in eastern Ukraine, Donbass, etc---there is no way that could even be described in the same fucking book as legal.
Now, people's rebellions are commonplace and understandable. Especially following Tymoshenko's machinations. Now, I know the old girl wasn't guilty of price-fixing all on her own, and I do know that the Russian colonial government put her in prison to the exclusion Putin supporters. This is a totalitarian tactic and one that is in opposition to everything that the word "democracy" stands for, but the fact is, that Yulia Tymoshenko is guilty of offences that would warrant the same punishment anywhere in the civilised world.
But price-fixing and collusion with illegal monopolies does not excuse the Russian government, under the despotic and iron-fisted rule of Vladimir Putin, rendering significant and material aid to rebels. But for the illegal interventions of the Putin regime, the situation in the East might well be over. Since Putin insists on goofing the floof in this area, though, we are saddled with the possibility of a Third World War. Putin's actions of fomenting unrest in the Ukraine mirror certain aspects of the actions of a particular Austrian corporal (yes, the same one Prince Charles compared him to).
Furthermore, he has not sent people who simply agree with the "ideals" (if you could call them that) behind the Anti-Maidan movement. Instead, the "potato bugs" (the pro-Russian ribbons they wear look like the elytrae of potato bugs) causing disturbances in Eastern Ukraine are mercenaries who have been paid on the order of $500 a week specifically to, as I said earlier, goof the floof. So not only is it an illegal ploy, but it is the work of a sociopath, with no ideals except cold, hard cash behind it.
One more thing that has happened is the separation referendum in Scotland. Scotchmen want to separate from the United Kingdom; on this, I hold no fixed opinion aside from a very weak "no". I am entirely willing to debate the benefits and the costs of separating, as I really and truly hold no major opinion. Yes, I'd like the Kingdom to remain United till the stars fall from the sky, but it is simply an ideal, rather than some deep-seated fucking conviction or something.
On the other hand, though, there have been some extremely dirty tactics from proponents on both sides. I use Twitter to express my dissatisfaction with certain elements of the "Yes" cause. These include the First Minister of Scotland, Alexander Salmond (whom I refer to as Fish) and his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon (whom I refer to as Fish Number Two). If I choose to air my dissatisfaction with these two individuals, my tweet is almost instantly picked up by the "Britnat Abuse Bot", a COMPUTER PROGRAM rebroadcasting "abuse" of anyone connected in the least with the Yes movement. This exposes me to enormous quantities of vitriol and hate-mail in spite of the fact that I HAVE NO FUCKING OPINION ABOUT YES OR NO!!!
First of all, Salmond and his party (the SNP) have a political platform and a style of rhetoric that is xenophobic, nationalistic, hateful, and specifically anti-English. Salmond has made it absolutely and perfectly clear that, should Scotland become independent, university will remain free of charge for members of the European Union, with the single exception of England. His currency plans are unworkable and smack of a petulant toddler throwing a tantrum. He has demanded that the British government establish a pound-sterling currency union; as he was roundly shot down by damn near everyone who fucking mattered more than a rabbit's fart in the Grand Scheme of Things, he simply said that he'll use the pound anyway, drag England (for it will be the United Kingdom no more) into a currency quagmire that it wants no part of and would have absolutely no control over, and essentially told the British government to kiss his morbidly obese arse.
And then comes the kicker. It was widely reported that Salmond and his SNP cronies personally "discouraged" certain powerful financial corporations from delivering an official, published opinion on Scotch independence. Reportedly, Salmond's telephone call was "forceful" and designed to "discourage... from saying anything". In plain English, what this means is that Salmond PERSONALLY EXTORTED LARGE BANKS INTO SHUTTING UP. He called them and most likely screamed unprintable obscenities and threats at a nominally independent coalition of banks. Heads of free and democratic countries DO NOT FUCKING DO THIS!!! Of course, the wonderful and magical SNP put a great spin on this: one of their mouthpieces said, basically, that Fish had been making sure that anything published was neutral and properly balanced. Well, then, I pray that God does not choose to become neutral.
What happened was extortion, pure and simple. If it had been Labour doing this, or Conservatives, or even fucking UKIP, they would be locked up and the key eaten (not merely thrown away) at the behest of the SNP. But because Saint Fish is doing this, nothing will ever come of it.
And all this has devolved into a culture of intimidation and hate. I remarked on Twitter that automatic accession of a separate Scotland to the European Union would be impossible. Two European presidents (as in heads of the European Union as a whole) had agreed with me: first Barroso and then Juncker. I was bombarded with a torrent of questions and hate mail. The first was rather easily dealt with. I don't mind answering questions. Many of them asked me to point to a specific EU law that agreed with me. I couldn't, I'll be the first to say, and that is because European law is such a complete and utter clusterfuck that it requires a degree so far beyond your regular Cambridge BA and that it is offered only at one tiny institution in Europe. This is why we have specialised civil servants such as Mr Barroso and Mr Juncker.
But when I was honest and up-front with this fact, and the fact that every major newspaper and the majority of government documentation on this issue seemed either to agree with me or simply not to disagree with me, I was labelled an "Anglo Canuck" (don't mind that, I'm proud to be an Anglo Canuck!) and a "member of the Village Idiot Club" (I am neither from a village, nor am I an idiot, so fuck you, fucking cunt.)
I'm just sick and tired of this shit. Debate intelligently or just why don't you SHUT THE FUCK UP.
First off, the Ontario election. I liked Hudak. I hoped that he'd win. I mean, I know he looks like a weasel but he had a budget plan that involved actually saving money, something that the province of Ontario so desperately needs. The other serious contender was a bull dyke named Kathleen Wynne, whose idea of budgeting was "spend money to save money". I see no problem with that idea, except for EVERY FUCKING WORD OF IT! You can NOT spend money left and right, money that you don't fucking have, and expect any sort of profit on this borrowed dosh to overshadow the inevitable fucking INTEREST that borrowing generates!
Like, look. Two men lose their jobs and need money. They have to make money to survive. One man gets an even more high-paying job, and tightens his belt so this doesn't happen in future. The other man goes to a cash point, withdraws $250 from his Barclaycard, and then says, "Hey, look, I've made money." NO YOU HAVEN'T.
Wynne didn't even spend money where it counts. What she should have spent it on was a tube system for Toronto to rival London's or Manhattan's. Instead, she spent it on giving happy-ending massages to teachers, government sector workers, and the unemployable poor. The majority of this province DOES NOT work for the government... and sinking money into the public school system is never a good idea, since it tends to disappear very quickly.
Oh, yes, and she cancelled two gas plants Ontario desperately needed to save two of her party bootlickers' arses. This had the end phenomenon of a 150% hike in gas prices... because the winter in Ontario was precisely the same as the one that helped defeat Hitler's forces in Russia.
Of course, this useless cunt of a candidate won. Now, I know Ontario voters are a perverse bunch. Never in the history of Ontario has a provincial Prime Minister been of the same party as the national Prime Minister, but for once, couldn't Ontario voters vote with their brains rather than their cocks? They should at least have balanced themselves out so that there was a hung parliament... now she and her gang of knuckleheads can put any bill, even a hare-brained one like the provincial budget, forward and it'll get passed come hell or high water.
Then the whole business with Russia/the Ukraine. Another complete clusterfuck. Now, I understand that Crimea was a gift to Ukraine by Khrushchev, with terms and conditions attached. Ukraine violated those terms and conditions. So I believe that the annexation of Crimea by Russia, especially following a popular fucking referendum, was legal and justified. But the goatfuck currently taking place in eastern Ukraine, Donbass, etc---there is no way that could even be described in the same fucking book as legal.
Now, people's rebellions are commonplace and understandable. Especially following Tymoshenko's machinations. Now, I know the old girl wasn't guilty of price-fixing all on her own, and I do know that the Russian colonial government put her in prison to the exclusion Putin supporters. This is a totalitarian tactic and one that is in opposition to everything that the word "democracy" stands for, but the fact is, that Yulia Tymoshenko is guilty of offences that would warrant the same punishment anywhere in the civilised world.
But price-fixing and collusion with illegal monopolies does not excuse the Russian government, under the despotic and iron-fisted rule of Vladimir Putin, rendering significant and material aid to rebels. But for the illegal interventions of the Putin regime, the situation in the East might well be over. Since Putin insists on goofing the floof in this area, though, we are saddled with the possibility of a Third World War. Putin's actions of fomenting unrest in the Ukraine mirror certain aspects of the actions of a particular Austrian corporal (yes, the same one Prince Charles compared him to).
Furthermore, he has not sent people who simply agree with the "ideals" (if you could call them that) behind the Anti-Maidan movement. Instead, the "potato bugs" (the pro-Russian ribbons they wear look like the elytrae of potato bugs) causing disturbances in Eastern Ukraine are mercenaries who have been paid on the order of $500 a week specifically to, as I said earlier, goof the floof. So not only is it an illegal ploy, but it is the work of a sociopath, with no ideals except cold, hard cash behind it.
One more thing that has happened is the separation referendum in Scotland. Scotchmen want to separate from the United Kingdom; on this, I hold no fixed opinion aside from a very weak "no". I am entirely willing to debate the benefits and the costs of separating, as I really and truly hold no major opinion. Yes, I'd like the Kingdom to remain United till the stars fall from the sky, but it is simply an ideal, rather than some deep-seated fucking conviction or something.
On the other hand, though, there have been some extremely dirty tactics from proponents on both sides. I use Twitter to express my dissatisfaction with certain elements of the "Yes" cause. These include the First Minister of Scotland, Alexander Salmond (whom I refer to as Fish) and his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon (whom I refer to as Fish Number Two). If I choose to air my dissatisfaction with these two individuals, my tweet is almost instantly picked up by the "Britnat Abuse Bot", a COMPUTER PROGRAM rebroadcasting "abuse" of anyone connected in the least with the Yes movement. This exposes me to enormous quantities of vitriol and hate-mail in spite of the fact that I HAVE NO FUCKING OPINION ABOUT YES OR NO!!!
First of all, Salmond and his party (the SNP) have a political platform and a style of rhetoric that is xenophobic, nationalistic, hateful, and specifically anti-English. Salmond has made it absolutely and perfectly clear that, should Scotland become independent, university will remain free of charge for members of the European Union, with the single exception of England. His currency plans are unworkable and smack of a petulant toddler throwing a tantrum. He has demanded that the British government establish a pound-sterling currency union; as he was roundly shot down by damn near everyone who fucking mattered more than a rabbit's fart in the Grand Scheme of Things, he simply said that he'll use the pound anyway, drag England (for it will be the United Kingdom no more) into a currency quagmire that it wants no part of and would have absolutely no control over, and essentially told the British government to kiss his morbidly obese arse.
And then comes the kicker. It was widely reported that Salmond and his SNP cronies personally "discouraged" certain powerful financial corporations from delivering an official, published opinion on Scotch independence. Reportedly, Salmond's telephone call was "forceful" and designed to "discourage... from saying anything". In plain English, what this means is that Salmond PERSONALLY EXTORTED LARGE BANKS INTO SHUTTING UP. He called them and most likely screamed unprintable obscenities and threats at a nominally independent coalition of banks. Heads of free and democratic countries DO NOT FUCKING DO THIS!!! Of course, the wonderful and magical SNP put a great spin on this: one of their mouthpieces said, basically, that Fish had been making sure that anything published was neutral and properly balanced. Well, then, I pray that God does not choose to become neutral.
What happened was extortion, pure and simple. If it had been Labour doing this, or Conservatives, or even fucking UKIP, they would be locked up and the key eaten (not merely thrown away) at the behest of the SNP. But because Saint Fish is doing this, nothing will ever come of it.
And all this has devolved into a culture of intimidation and hate. I remarked on Twitter that automatic accession of a separate Scotland to the European Union would be impossible. Two European presidents (as in heads of the European Union as a whole) had agreed with me: first Barroso and then Juncker. I was bombarded with a torrent of questions and hate mail. The first was rather easily dealt with. I don't mind answering questions. Many of them asked me to point to a specific EU law that agreed with me. I couldn't, I'll be the first to say, and that is because European law is such a complete and utter clusterfuck that it requires a degree so far beyond your regular Cambridge BA and that it is offered only at one tiny institution in Europe. This is why we have specialised civil servants such as Mr Barroso and Mr Juncker.
But when I was honest and up-front with this fact, and the fact that every major newspaper and the majority of government documentation on this issue seemed either to agree with me or simply not to disagree with me, I was labelled an "Anglo Canuck" (don't mind that, I'm proud to be an Anglo Canuck!) and a "member of the Village Idiot Club" (I am neither from a village, nor am I an idiot, so fuck you, fucking cunt.)
I'm just sick and tired of this shit. Debate intelligently or just why don't you SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Is the DEA serious?
Last year, history was made in two American states, Washington and Colorado: through the process of democracy and what is known as an "initiative", the personal use of marihuana was made legal. Legalisation was pursued and passed by the wishes of the citizens, rather than by politicians.
Now, eight former Drug Czars (chieves of the Drug Enforcement Agency), through an "advocacy" organisation named "Save Our Society from Drugs", are urging the President to crack down on this. For the love of God, Jesus, and all that's holy, why?! These idiots are criticising the Obama regime because it isn't fast-tracking a lawsuit to once again make marihuana illegal. The only right fucking thing that the current regime is doing, and these dumbfucks are pressuring Obama to reverse it? Fuckers.
One of these idiots, named Peter Bensinger, said that he was "afraid" that the D.O.J. will do nothing and say nothing, which will lead to marihuana being legal in these two states (maybe that's the point, you wanker!) and it could even lead to legalisation in other states too. Which would be a big deal why? Then he puts his foot in his mouth yet again, as he says that the Washington and Colorado lawmakers are committing a federal crime.
Bensinger was drug czar under Ford, Carter, and Reagan; the federal drug control law (the Controlled Substances Act) was his baby, as well as John Bartels, who preceded him under Nixon and who was initially responsible for the CSA's enforcement.
The reason they feel this way is understandable, but it doesn't make it right. As champions of this failed drug policy, they don't want to admit that it was costly and ineffective, and that they were wrong; unfortunately, affecting millions of people because you don't want to be wrong is not exactly fair.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Senate_Judiciary_letter-version-2.pdf
Now, eight former Drug Czars (chieves of the Drug Enforcement Agency), through an "advocacy" organisation named "Save Our Society from Drugs", are urging the President to crack down on this. For the love of God, Jesus, and all that's holy, why?! These idiots are criticising the Obama regime because it isn't fast-tracking a lawsuit to once again make marihuana illegal. The only right fucking thing that the current regime is doing, and these dumbfucks are pressuring Obama to reverse it? Fuckers.
One of these idiots, named Peter Bensinger, said that he was "afraid" that the D.O.J. will do nothing and say nothing, which will lead to marihuana being legal in these two states (maybe that's the point, you wanker!) and it could even lead to legalisation in other states too. Which would be a big deal why? Then he puts his foot in his mouth yet again, as he says that the Washington and Colorado lawmakers are committing a federal crime.
Bensinger was drug czar under Ford, Carter, and Reagan; the federal drug control law (the Controlled Substances Act) was his baby, as well as John Bartels, who preceded him under Nixon and who was initially responsible for the CSA's enforcement.
The reason they feel this way is understandable, but it doesn't make it right. As champions of this failed drug policy, they don't want to admit that it was costly and ineffective, and that they were wrong; unfortunately, affecting millions of people because you don't want to be wrong is not exactly fair.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Senate_Judiciary_letter-version-2.pdf
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Why I hate Israeli politics
The dirtiness of politics does not faze me; it never has, and it never will. The sheer number of backroom deals that take place in jurisdictions all over the world are simply the name of the game. Pure insanity, however, is quite surprising: on one hand, there are countries like Iran since the revolution, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Cuba... and then, there's Israel. It's not that Israel is a country lacking in democracy. It isn't. When you delve underneath the surface, though, you start to see that politics in Israel is so far gone from either the British model or the European model that it's almost
incomprehensible.
A lot of this stems from the way the sheeple... erm, people... of the great flock named the Holy Land elect the man that will lead them. In any country, this is called an electoral system. Great Britain, Canada, and the United States of America use a system called first-past-the-post. America holds presidential elections separate from parliamentary ones, and there is a system to figure out who will be the presidential candidate (this is called a primary election), but when it comes time to pick the Supreme Emperor of the Universe, this is still first-past-the-post. This system is simple. Really simple. It's so simple even a stoner could understand it, and this is why athletic races use this system too.
In first-past-the-post, the country is divided up into little chunks, and the candidate who gets the most votes in his little chunk wins. You can only vote for one person. It's the same system as the Olympics. A race is run for the 100-metre sprint, Usain Bolt gets the gold; another race is run for the quarter mile, Michael Johnson gets the gold; yet another race is run for shot put, Tomasz Majewski gets the gold, and so on. Whichever political party wins the most races gets to pick Prime Minister. Simple, eh?
Israeli elections don't work like that. They use a system called full proportional representation; they are in fact the /only/ jurisdiction in which this is the case. Whenever you watch vote results in a country other than Israel, you'll get something called the popular vote. The Israelis don't broadcast this (well, they do, but it's not called that); in Israel, the popular vote is called "who won". It's the most democratic system in the world. The way Israeli elections run is simple, too. Far simpler than European elections (some of which require the use of a computer to find the winner). Instead of cutting the country up into little chunks, everybody votes as one big chunk. If, say, 25 per cent. of people vote for Likud, 25 per cent. of seats in Parliament will go to Likud. This means that any party with at least /some/ support will get a seat.
Here's the kicker though. Israel is a country with more than its fair share of villages, and every last one of these villages has an idiot or two to go with it. When these village idiots go to cast their ballots, hilarity ensues. A village idiot won't vote for a party like the Republicans or the Democrats. I'm a Thatcherite Conservative, but I can understand why someone would vote Democrat; this is why we have opposition in Parliament. As I wrote earlier, any party with a couple people willing to listen will get into Parliament, so you can pretty much count on Israel's version of the Fascists getting in... and, to balance it out, some Communists too. These still aren't village idiot parties. The Fascists were right in a lot of ways; look at Germany under Hitler. Certainly, his foreign policy needed work, and his anti-Semitism and his brutal eugenics programmes (though eugenics, the art and science of improving the world through selective breeding, itself isn't a bad thing). The Commies had it right too.
But suppose you had a party headed by Rick Santorum, separate and distinct from the Republicans. Their agenda consists of fervently support of a bill against freedom of "choice" (abortion), and opposition to bills separating church and state, legalising the possession of marihuana, for medical reasons or otherwise, and permitting the marriage of two same-sex individuals; for all other issues, any member is free to vote according to their own, personal beliefs (no party line). Say you had a Ku Klux Klan party too: they'd have a big foreign agenda to police other countries, and they'd naturally support apartheid and oppose immigration; again, no party line otherwise. To top it all off, say there was a Legalise It party, with its sole party line being the legalisation of all recreational drugs, with absolutely no party line for any other issue. Of course, only the village idiot would vote for any of these parties. Now, Canada, the U. S. of A., and a lot of European countries have parties like these, but they don't stand a chance of getting into Parliament, so their influence is pretty fucking low. With Israel's fairly big number of village idiots and its crazy electoral regime, all of these are represented in Parliament. Now, you're getting /close/ to the political situation in Israel.
Of course with a country full of immigrants from all over the world, with radically different views on basically everything, and with voting preferences to match, there will be a million parties in Parliament after this goatfuck is all over and done with. So, the chance of a clear leader emerging is roughly equal to the chance of pigs flying... out of my anus. Backroom chat time! So, you end up with a couple of relatively big parties sitting at a table and trying to figure out exactly which of the village idiot parties, and here are the key words, do not contradict their major party lines. Fun, eh?
With politics being what they are, anywhere in the world, every party has to make concessions. For instance, to gain the support of socially conservative voters, Mitt Romney (whose convictions are on the pro-choice side) had to join the pro-life cause. Now you add the extra layer of insanity that occurs in the Holy Land. Say the "Santorumites" (Shas) want to table a bill that will introduce mandatory minimum sentencing for marihuana possession, and another one that will require all television and wireless stations to broadcast two hours a day of content made in Israel; the "Republicans" (Likud) will vote yes, but only if Shas votes yes to attack Palestine. This is why Israel's political system is such a quagmire, yet it stands as the most democratic system in the world.
Friday, November 23, 2012
The name of this blog
I always wanted to write about politics, although medicine and education are also topics I love. I named this blog after the title of a very obscure song by a band named Bourbon Princess, or rather, a woman named the Bourbon Princess: Monique Ortiz.
I love the band, Morphine. Their opiated lyrics, penned by the late, great, and aptly-named Mark Sandman, bring to mind an old-fashioned, dark and gritty pub, with sand on the floor, where rough men go to cheat on their wives. It sounds like so much Billy Burroughs (one of my favourite writers), and perhaps also Jack Kerouac. Still, it's music you could give your mother, and she wouldn't complain. Here's a couple extracts so you can see what I'm talking about:
(from Shame)
I felt bad, and there was nothing I could do about it
Nothing I could do to make it go away
I felt bad, and there was nothing I could do to change it
Nothing I could do to make things change.
I know you're mad at me,
I know you want to slit my throat,
I know you think I think it's all a joke,
But I don't; I don't.
(from You Speak My Language)
All around the world, everywhere I go,
No-one understands me.
No-one knows what I'm trying to say.
Even in my home-town,
My friends make me write it down,
They look at me as I talk to them,
And they shrug their shoulders.
They go "What's he talking about?"
But you—you speak my language!
(from I Had A Chance)
I had a chance and I let it go,
I had a chance and I let it go,
And if I ever have myself another chance like that,
I'll grab it and I won't look back.
Sometimes, I'm too careful,
I walk just like I'm carrying a hand-grenade.
It's going tick-tick-tick-tick-ticking in my hand.
The few Morphine songs that contain sexual overtones discuss the act in very general terms; there is only one time Mark Sandman uses a four-letter word, and it relates to personality, not sex (I'm really just a f--k-up, and such a waste). Those songs are Whisper (So whisper me your number, I'll call you up at home), Come Over (So come over, come over, come over, come over to-night!), and Thursday (extract follows):
One day, she says,
Come on up to my house.
She says her husband's out of town,
You know, he's gone 'till the end of the month.
Monique Ortiz is an entirely different animal, although her musical style is identical to Morphine's; Bourbon Princess, and a host of other bands, came into being after Mark Sandman's untimely death at the age of 46 in 1999. It is generally accepted that the great majority of Morphine's songs depict true stories (possibly even Mark's affair with a married woman at the Wagon Wheel, a real motel in Massachusetts); this is probably also true of Bourbon Princess. Monique sings from the point of view of a femme fatale and a heroin addict, and her lyrics are often laced with a staunchly feminist portrayal of sex, as well as plenty of references to the use and abuse of heroin. Consider this:
(from I'll Take A Cab)
I love the band, Morphine. Their opiated lyrics, penned by the late, great, and aptly-named Mark Sandman, bring to mind an old-fashioned, dark and gritty pub, with sand on the floor, where rough men go to cheat on their wives. It sounds like so much Billy Burroughs (one of my favourite writers), and perhaps also Jack Kerouac. Still, it's music you could give your mother, and she wouldn't complain. Here's a couple extracts so you can see what I'm talking about:
(from Shame)
I felt bad, and there was nothing I could do about it
Nothing I could do to make it go away
I felt bad, and there was nothing I could do to change it
Nothing I could do to make things change.
I know you're mad at me,
I know you want to slit my throat,
I know you think I think it's all a joke,
But I don't; I don't.
(from You Speak My Language)
All around the world, everywhere I go,
No-one understands me.
No-one knows what I'm trying to say.
Even in my home-town,
My friends make me write it down,
They look at me as I talk to them,
And they shrug their shoulders.
They go "What's he talking about?"
But you—you speak my language!
(from I Had A Chance)
I had a chance and I let it go,
I had a chance and I let it go,
And if I ever have myself another chance like that,
I'll grab it and I won't look back.
Sometimes, I'm too careful,
I walk just like I'm carrying a hand-grenade.
It's going tick-tick-tick-tick-ticking in my hand.
The few Morphine songs that contain sexual overtones discuss the act in very general terms; there is only one time Mark Sandman uses a four-letter word, and it relates to personality, not sex (I'm really just a f--k-up, and such a waste). Those songs are Whisper (So whisper me your number, I'll call you up at home), Come Over (So come over, come over, come over, come over to-night!), and Thursday (extract follows):
One day, she says,
Come on up to my house.
She says her husband's out of town,
You know, he's gone 'till the end of the month.
Monique Ortiz is an entirely different animal, although her musical style is identical to Morphine's; Bourbon Princess, and a host of other bands, came into being after Mark Sandman's untimely death at the age of 46 in 1999. It is generally accepted that the great majority of Morphine's songs depict true stories (possibly even Mark's affair with a married woman at the Wagon Wheel, a real motel in Massachusetts); this is probably also true of Bourbon Princess. Monique sings from the point of view of a femme fatale and a heroin addict, and her lyrics are often laced with a staunchly feminist portrayal of sex, as well as plenty of references to the use and abuse of heroin. Consider this:
(from I'll Take A Cab)
You seedy, tired piece of trash,
trying to get my sympathies.
Yeah, maybe if I feel bad enough
I'll drop down and give you some~.
Yeah, right, not now, not later, never,
ten years older and [unintelligible].
Soon the world is gonna blow,
so we better spend the night together~.
I'll take a cab, it'll get me there.
Avoiding you is worth the highest fare.
(from Spanish Fly)
Emptied out my mind
On some porno back in '89.
I wake to masturbate,
I hold my breath and hesitate.
Map the stars, count the sheep,
Anything so long as I might sleep.
So scratch my palm again,
Make me rich and be my friend.
I'm the Cuban at the door,
Called a Commie and a whore.
If he wasn't hit with anger,
I'm sure he would have given more.
(from Master Manipulator)
If it makes you feel better
To put the blame on me,
Go ahead, go ahead and do it.
You learned from the best,
The master manipulator.
You're smooth, but obvious,
I'll let you believe it,
But I won't fall for it.
(from Three Chairs)
Your apartment's a little bit cluttered,
But still the nicest place I've ever seen.
Your bedroom's so big and foreboding,
I can't imagine making love to anyone here,
To anyone here.
In the woods I tried to find you,
But you left no mark, no popcorn trail,
Just a door-handle and a blueprint,
Needles and a broken scale.
This junkie wrote some of the most powerful songs extant, and one of these songs is the name-sake of this blog. Dark of Days could apply equally to the Bilderberg Conference, the Trilateral, Freemasonry, the Skull and Bones, or even the basement of the American executive mansion, the White House—wherever powerful men meet and discuss the future of our world, who lives and who dies. Here is the complete text of the song:
Some kind of lagoon,
Where pharaohs and modern-day dictators meet in a room,
Discussing their final parts,
And all their future sins.
Let the new day begin, they say,
As they raise their glasses to the Dark of Days,
All their guns were stacked in a pile
By the coat-check,
The girl hasn't made enough tips yet.
She never seems to smile.
Their wives are all home,
Gossiping and chit-chatting on their telephones.
Painting up their toe-nails,
Though they can not show their feet.
You can kiss her,
But you better be discreet.
For all the alarms,
There sure is a great deal of calm.
Where'd everyone go,
In shelters and basements a hundred sixty feet below!
The wind took the sails,
Waltzing on the ocean,
The captain's on a bed of nails,
As all those evil thinkers and foul-mouthed drinkers
Made plans for us.
This doom is very scenic and bright,
For a moment I forgot that we were still in the night.
The moon had killed the stars,
We haven't travelled far,
We've miles and miles to go and it's beginning to snow!
So we wage wars,
Though neither side settles the score.
Calling around, blind on the ground,
Sniffing out the blood of those bitter hounds.
Taking borders, only to dissipate,
They don't deserve to settle here anyway.
Cry all you want, we were here first,
Get those filthy hands off of our holy turf!
Times don't change.
We ignore all the progress we've made.
No good-luck charms,
Just this grenade around my neck,
And a bloody spool of yarn.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Why I haven't written in a while
Recently I got interested in a fellow named L. Ron Hubbard. He was a sci-fi writer who had invented a method of psychotherapy and a lot of other things; later on, he bundled all these things up into a "religion" named Scientology. The funny thing is you don't really worship a God in Scientology; what you worship is up to you, as long as you throw in thousands of dollars to your neighbourhood Church of Scientology. Really, what they are is a self-help business; and this is where L. Ron Hubbard had a lot of his great ideas.
Hubbard wrote a bunch of research papers, in addition to his sci-fi novels; in these research papers, I found that he had written a perfectly workable method to improve anyone's study skills easily. It takes a little co-operation from teachers, but the majority of the "Student Hat Course", as Hubbard called it, is dependent upon nothing but the student. At first glance, I fell in love with the methods Hubbard employed and quickly applied them to my own study, which improved one hundred per cent. as a result. Oh, and by the way, I didn't spend a penny.
My infatuation with the subject put a bit of a worm into my head: what if I wrote a book on it? So I did. I wrote whenever I felt bored, which was essentially all the time, and I had the book done in about three months. There was already a set of books on the subject, but these were by the "Church" of Scientology and therefore subject to criticism; there were also two free, online treatments of the subject, which I took into account when I wrote the book.
So now I have a 120-page treatment of Hubbard's study papers—I plan to get it published. Don't know when, if, or how that will happen, but at least I can present you here and now with the basic ideas of this book.
The first thing the student has to have, Hubbard argues, is the willingness to know about something. If he is arrogant enough to think he has nothing to learn, his closed mind probably won't absorb anything. Even a willing student has problems studying, though, and these come from the three barriers to learning: a) an absence of whatever is being studied, or at least a model of it; b) the subject isn't being learned step-by-step; c) a poor vocabulary. Hubbard calls these problems a lack of mass, out-gradientness, and misunderstoods respectively.
Of course, there's more to it—critical thinking has to develop, because not everything you read is true. A student needs to learn to find gaping holes in a book if there are any, so there's a whole chapter devoted to that. There's a chapter devoted to the building blocks of understanding (affinity, shared belief/reality, and communication), and there's even a chapter on breaking through double-speak.
There are two big assumptions inherent in the traditional study system that Hubbard challenges. I take his side on this, because really it's true. First of all, fifty per cent. is not a passing grade. If your mechanic fixed your car only half the time, would you consider him acceptable? I sure wouldn't. The only passing grade is 100%, but you can only achieve this if you stop asking stupid questions. A physics student needs to know what Newton's Laws are. He does NOT need to know who Newton was, where he lived, or when he lived—so WHY is this on the quiz?! Second, students in a course study at VERY different speeds. Why does the teacher teach at the same speed for everyone? This approach doesn't work. So Hubbard introduced a checksheet system—you study certain pages of the materials and do the exercises in the order they appear on the checklist, and your study partner checks them off as you go along. Then your study partner studies, and you check him off.
Almost no classroom that I have ever been in would pass Hubbard's check. Hubbard emphasises the need for dictionaries; there have been some classes that don't even have a single one. He also emphasises the "clay table": a table a student can make a model of whatever he's studying in clay, and by studying this clay mock-up, understand the actual thing being taught.
The worst thing, though, in my opinion, is what Hubbard calls the glib student. I have often envied "glib" students because they always seemed to have higher marks than I did; now I see that I have no real reason to envy them. A glib student is one that has set up a tape recorder in his mind and is expert at only one thing: parroting back whatever the book or the teacher told him. Such students always seem to do well on exams—thus the source of my envy. However, a student like this never seems to properly apply what he studies, and this is the real goal of school, not some arbitrary construct for marks.
There's Hubbard in a nutshell, and this is why I haven't been writing too much otherwise lately.
Hubbard wrote a bunch of research papers, in addition to his sci-fi novels; in these research papers, I found that he had written a perfectly workable method to improve anyone's study skills easily. It takes a little co-operation from teachers, but the majority of the "Student Hat Course", as Hubbard called it, is dependent upon nothing but the student. At first glance, I fell in love with the methods Hubbard employed and quickly applied them to my own study, which improved one hundred per cent. as a result. Oh, and by the way, I didn't spend a penny.
My infatuation with the subject put a bit of a worm into my head: what if I wrote a book on it? So I did. I wrote whenever I felt bored, which was essentially all the time, and I had the book done in about three months. There was already a set of books on the subject, but these were by the "Church" of Scientology and therefore subject to criticism; there were also two free, online treatments of the subject, which I took into account when I wrote the book.
So now I have a 120-page treatment of Hubbard's study papers—I plan to get it published. Don't know when, if, or how that will happen, but at least I can present you here and now with the basic ideas of this book.
The first thing the student has to have, Hubbard argues, is the willingness to know about something. If he is arrogant enough to think he has nothing to learn, his closed mind probably won't absorb anything. Even a willing student has problems studying, though, and these come from the three barriers to learning: a) an absence of whatever is being studied, or at least a model of it; b) the subject isn't being learned step-by-step; c) a poor vocabulary. Hubbard calls these problems a lack of mass, out-gradientness, and misunderstoods respectively.
Of course, there's more to it—critical thinking has to develop, because not everything you read is true. A student needs to learn to find gaping holes in a book if there are any, so there's a whole chapter devoted to that. There's a chapter devoted to the building blocks of understanding (affinity, shared belief/reality, and communication), and there's even a chapter on breaking through double-speak.
There are two big assumptions inherent in the traditional study system that Hubbard challenges. I take his side on this, because really it's true. First of all, fifty per cent. is not a passing grade. If your mechanic fixed your car only half the time, would you consider him acceptable? I sure wouldn't. The only passing grade is 100%, but you can only achieve this if you stop asking stupid questions. A physics student needs to know what Newton's Laws are. He does NOT need to know who Newton was, where he lived, or when he lived—so WHY is this on the quiz?! Second, students in a course study at VERY different speeds. Why does the teacher teach at the same speed for everyone? This approach doesn't work. So Hubbard introduced a checksheet system—you study certain pages of the materials and do the exercises in the order they appear on the checklist, and your study partner checks them off as you go along. Then your study partner studies, and you check him off.
Almost no classroom that I have ever been in would pass Hubbard's check. Hubbard emphasises the need for dictionaries; there have been some classes that don't even have a single one. He also emphasises the "clay table": a table a student can make a model of whatever he's studying in clay, and by studying this clay mock-up, understand the actual thing being taught.
The worst thing, though, in my opinion, is what Hubbard calls the glib student. I have often envied "glib" students because they always seemed to have higher marks than I did; now I see that I have no real reason to envy them. A glib student is one that has set up a tape recorder in his mind and is expert at only one thing: parroting back whatever the book or the teacher told him. Such students always seem to do well on exams—thus the source of my envy. However, a student like this never seems to properly apply what he studies, and this is the real goal of school, not some arbitrary construct for marks.
There's Hubbard in a nutshell, and this is why I haven't been writing too much otherwise lately.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Republicrats and Demicans, it's all a one-party system...
I've read a few political posts on here again, and this put me back in my usual politics-minded zone. So, I'll try to explain what is wrong with America and why Obama is ruining the country even more; keep in mind, this is from the point of view of an outsider, and thus, in my non-humble opinion, a neutral observer.
The otherwise repulsive character, Dolores Umbridge, said a few lines in "Order of the Phoenix" that fit politics perfectly. "Without progress there will be stagnation and decay. Then again, progress for progress’s sake must be discouraged, for our tried and tested traditions often require no tinkering. A balance, then, between old and new, between permanence and change, between tradition and innovation, because some changes will be for the better, while others come, in the fullness of time, to be recognized as errors of judgment. Meanwhile, some old habits will be retained, and rightly so, whereas others, outmoded and outworn, must be abandoned. Let us move forward, then, into a new era of openness, effectiveness, and accountability, intent on preserving what ought to be preserved, perfecting what needs to be perfected, and pruning wherever we find practices that ought to be prohibited."
Some of these practices that ought to be pruned are... well... the primary bones of contention between Democrats and Republicans, especially in the cultural/social arena. First off, gay marriage. I am against any and all discrimination. However, marriage is an ancient institution, and before this century, each marriage consisted of precisely one man and one or more women. I feel that the benefits available to married couples should also be available to homosexual couples. However, the means of bringing about such benefits in the context of a long-term committed relationship should be recognisably different for married and homosexual couples. The term "marriage" and the centuries-old traditions existing within this ceremony should not be used. How about the term "conjugal union", or something else? Just not the M-word. That's a special word, and a special ceremony. Let's keep it that way.
Contraception. How could this even be a bone of contention? Insurance plans should cover family planning (abortion is NOT family planning, it's Plan C). No exceptions—the Democrats have this one right. "Contraception is ... not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. [Sex] is supposed to be within marriage... for purposes that are ... procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…This is special and it needs to be seen as special." So now Rick the Dick is telling Americans what they should THINK about sex... Wittle Wicky, do you bewieve that wife begins at ewection, too? Abortion. No electives. For situations likely to cause medical or psychiatric harm to mother, father, or child; also for conception arising as a result of sexual assault. Republicans have it right. Abstinence-only sex ed. How could this even be a problem? People have a right to know about their bodies. Comprehensive sexual education must be mandatory. Democrats get this one.
The worst problem Democrats have is this damn idea of handouts. Many wealthy people are wealthy because they have worked hard and attained success. If this motivator is removed by the Powers that Be in the form of taxes, this will mean that America will lose the one thing guaranteed to put smart, potentially successful people on the right track—money. Would be terrible to see modern-day Newtons and Hawkings and Torvalds and Murdochs wasting their life away in back alleys drinking wine coolers and smoking dagga. My biggest problem, aside from the individual mandate of Obamacare, which is a PENALTY and not a TAX, (nothing against Obamacare, just hate the Individual mandate) is unemployment insurance. Get this: a drug-dependent individual, unemployABLE, is paid insurance for the unemployED. Even worse: underage female of low income status and low education is impregnated, disowned, and ends up single, possibly also dependent on drugs, and living alone. Every additional rugape she brings into the world is worth money to her, so she ends up nothing but a brat-bearing machine, while the intelligent yuppie couple on the other side of town have one intelligent child. The one smart kid will bear another smart kid, while each of the stupid brats will hook up with an equally stupid partner and bear five or six stupid children. I mean, the basic concept of unemployment assistance is sound—but drug tests should be introduced and subsidies for children eliminated.
The otherwise repulsive character, Dolores Umbridge, said a few lines in "Order of the Phoenix" that fit politics perfectly. "Without progress there will be stagnation and decay. Then again, progress for progress’s sake must be discouraged, for our tried and tested traditions often require no tinkering. A balance, then, between old and new, between permanence and change, between tradition and innovation, because some changes will be for the better, while others come, in the fullness of time, to be recognized as errors of judgment. Meanwhile, some old habits will be retained, and rightly so, whereas others, outmoded and outworn, must be abandoned. Let us move forward, then, into a new era of openness, effectiveness, and accountability, intent on preserving what ought to be preserved, perfecting what needs to be perfected, and pruning wherever we find practices that ought to be prohibited."
Some of these practices that ought to be pruned are... well... the primary bones of contention between Democrats and Republicans, especially in the cultural/social arena. First off, gay marriage. I am against any and all discrimination. However, marriage is an ancient institution, and before this century, each marriage consisted of precisely one man and one or more women. I feel that the benefits available to married couples should also be available to homosexual couples. However, the means of bringing about such benefits in the context of a long-term committed relationship should be recognisably different for married and homosexual couples. The term "marriage" and the centuries-old traditions existing within this ceremony should not be used. How about the term "conjugal union", or something else? Just not the M-word. That's a special word, and a special ceremony. Let's keep it that way.
Contraception. How could this even be a bone of contention? Insurance plans should cover family planning (abortion is NOT family planning, it's Plan C). No exceptions—the Democrats have this one right. "Contraception is ... not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. [Sex] is supposed to be within marriage... for purposes that are ... procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…This is special and it needs to be seen as special." So now Rick the Dick is telling Americans what they should THINK about sex... Wittle Wicky, do you bewieve that wife begins at ewection, too? Abortion. No electives. For situations likely to cause medical or psychiatric harm to mother, father, or child; also for conception arising as a result of sexual assault. Republicans have it right. Abstinence-only sex ed. How could this even be a problem? People have a right to know about their bodies. Comprehensive sexual education must be mandatory. Democrats get this one.
The worst problem Democrats have is this damn idea of handouts. Many wealthy people are wealthy because they have worked hard and attained success. If this motivator is removed by the Powers that Be in the form of taxes, this will mean that America will lose the one thing guaranteed to put smart, potentially successful people on the right track—money. Would be terrible to see modern-day Newtons and Hawkings and Torvalds and Murdochs wasting their life away in back alleys drinking wine coolers and smoking dagga. My biggest problem, aside from the individual mandate of Obamacare, which is a PENALTY and not a TAX, (nothing against Obamacare, just hate the Individual mandate) is unemployment insurance. Get this: a drug-dependent individual, unemployABLE, is paid insurance for the unemployED. Even worse: underage female of low income status and low education is impregnated, disowned, and ends up single, possibly also dependent on drugs, and living alone. Every additional rugape she brings into the world is worth money to her, so she ends up nothing but a brat-bearing machine, while the intelligent yuppie couple on the other side of town have one intelligent child. The one smart kid will bear another smart kid, while each of the stupid brats will hook up with an equally stupid partner and bear five or six stupid children. I mean, the basic concept of unemployment assistance is sound—but drug tests should be introduced and subsidies for children eliminated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)