A 40-something Western Canadian who still thinks he's 24. Dreamer, thinker, photographer, traveler, entrepreneur, software developer. Adores women immensely but is still working hard at trying to understand them! :-)
This is my personal blog and primarily focuses on my photography & videography.
Dear friends, family, loved ones, conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, my brother in law, Sam, and my cousin Joe: I am sorry and you were right.
These are not easy words for anyone to utter, much less a leftist from Berkeley, or a recovering leftist, that is. Even though I've been in recovery for 14 months, 2 weeks, and 3 days, leftists are always right in your face, in an I-hate-you-if-you-disagree sort of way. Hence, this letter of amends to all the people I've lectured, scolded, ranted and raved at, and otherwise annoyed during my 30 plus years of "progressive" politics.
George Will has written a stunning article, showing precisely what has gone wrong with California's economy. Headed by a RINO governor and ultra-leftist congress, the state is a perfect example of where Barack Obama & Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid will be taking the entire United States. Simply put, the private sector can not afford to support a public sector that grows too large. Here's a telling snippet from Will's article:
The state's crisis has been caused by "moderation," understood as splitting the difference between extreme liberalism and hyperliberalism, a "reasonableness" that merely moderates the speed at which the ever-expanding public sector suffocates the private sector. California has become liberalism's laboratory, in which the case for fiscal conservatism is being confirmed. The state is a slow learner and hence will remain a drag on the nation's economy.
On many social issues I'm actually fairly liberal, to a point. But on the issues of Law & Order, Fiscal Responsibility, and Self Responsibility I'm extremely conservative. In the Canada of 2009 this makes me a "right-wing nutcase" in the eyes of many on the Left (if the hate mail I receive is any gauge).
Like many of you who have also not overdosed on the Kool Aid of the Far Left, I have plenty of friends on the Left. Living here in Vancouver, it's pretty much unavoidable! I would never say that any of them are stupid and in fact, on a typical IQ test, I'm fairly sure they'd do quite well. But most of them seem to be more driven by emotion rather than intellect & logic, especially when it comes to political & social matters.
I've thus come to the realization that if someone is so driven by emotion to be compelled to constantly want to make "quick fixes" then they are absolutely incapable of appreciating the Law of Unintended Consequences.
This seems to be extremely emblematic in the Obama Administration. What's happening now with the CIA is beyond appalling and I fear will be extremely dangerous for us in the coming years & decades. Fred Thompson shares his thoughts.
Update: I received the following two comments from different folks on SDA. While I don't agree with everything that both said, there are some interesting thoughts nonetheless:
thanks for the link to the excellent analysis by Fred Thompson.
He's right - Obama, a man of total naivete, lack of experience, coupled with 'unbelievable arrogance and ineptitude' has indeed unleashed a pandora's box in Washington.
But he operates by emotional manipulation. His campaign was all about emotional manipulation, based on the amorphous emotions of 'hope and change' - without details of what enabled these emotions to exist. His campaign was geared to emotions, such as 'anti-Bush' and racism, where he defined himself as possibly, subject to racism is a white person rejected him ...Remember his tale of his white grandmother being 'afraid of big black men'.
Recall how he dealt with the public anger at the AIG bonuses; he inflamed and inflated it, setting up a lynch mob hysteria! And then, he was exposed as agential in that his administration actually wrote those bonuses into, and agreed to them; they were legal.
But Obama didn't tell the public that; instead, he misinformed and manipulated them, using them as part of his Campaign Against The Middle Class; against entrepreneurship, against setting up businesses to make money.
The Democrats were stunned by the Tea Parties. They tried to deflect them by denigrating them, by suggesting they were 'all planned' by FOX, by the Republicans etc. This didn't work; they know another one is planned for Sept 12.
So, Obama has resorted to his usual emotional manipulation, where he sets up class vs class, race vs race - and people vs people. This diverts from his pork spending, his take-over of private corporations, his funding of leftist socialist agendas.
Now, he's using his Bash Bush tactic, one that he's used before. He's trying to define ALL Conservatives, ALL people against the Iraq, Afghanistan, Terror Wars - as criminals. This is a massive attack.
He released that DHS memo - the day before the Tea Parties; this memo, a travesty of bigotry, defines anyone who questions and dissents from the left - in issues on abortion, on immigration, on security - as 'extreme right winger prone to violence'. It defines any member of the military returning from service as a 'right winger' and 'susceptible to violence'.
Notice - the military is criminalized. Dissent and questions on left wing policies are criminalized.
Then, his next step was to attack Bush and his era as criminals. He claims they are torturers. This has backfired on him because it's been shown that the Democrats knew and approved of these interrogation tactics.
Now, he's going to release photos of psychological manipulation in the prisons - to further divide American citizesn..and to take the heat off those Democrats who supported 'harsh interrogation'.
Result? He's viciously divided and weakened Americans, focusing their attention on the past and on Bush, diverting their attention from his extreme socialist policies. He's weakened questions and dissent from 'the right', by his definition of anyone on the right as 'an extremist prone to violence'; as an enabler of torture; as an abuser, etc etc.
That's on the domestic side. Abroad - what has he done? Denigrated and belittled the USA, insulted close allies, cosseted and fawned over declared enemies, equated democracy to dictatorships, ignored American bounty and generosity to the world and declared that his pride in his country is only because he comes from there and is expected to support it but has nothing to do with any value of the USA.
I share ET's concern(the DHS document has changed my life and views). If I was an American I would fall into the "threat to security" category. For what? I'm an atheist, I'm pro-choice and pretty liberal on most social issues. My crime, I support small and decentralized government. One could make the argument that religion, abortion and GW are not political issues, but you can't as far as I can tell argue that "type of government" isn't a political issue.
I foresee a day where people are being imprisoned for not towing the government line. I thought it was all jokes and fun when we were busting Suzuki's chops for suggesting what at the time seemed ludicrous. Today I'm not so sure. From BO's civilian police force, to thought police at universities, to Joo's being banned and harassed publicly, to being declared a threat to national security, and finally the media suppressing the truth and actually creating a new truth about the Tea Parties; I'm not so sure we're joking anymore. The media has shown they are quite capable of covering-up anything; so, what if the government started rounding up people and jailing or executing them for political views? Can the media be trusted to keep the public informed and not indoctrinated?
The people have been identified, the eyes and ears of the population have been compromised. So what comes next?
It appears to me that war has been declared on those that would oppose the Democrats and the new President. War has been declared on millions of people with diverse views, but all sharing that one common thread. No view or ideology is sacred, you must adjust on the fly, only government is constant. As it stands now, we're a move or two from check-mate.
One cannot fight a war without a leader. Soon the time will come when we must disperse and keep our mouths shut for self-preservation's sake.
David Berner is a well known media personality in Vancouver and someone who I've felt honoured to have met a few times in my life. On some issues we very much agree whilst on others we don't at all. Gay Marriage happens to be one of the latter. Here's something he recently posted.
Here's the comment I left him:
David, the issue of gay marriage is low on my priority list. It was made legal here in Canada and hasn't directly affected my life at all. And I wholeheartedly believe that gay couples should have all the same benefits, etc. of heterosexual couples.
But if I was given the choice to vote on it, I would vote 'No' for gay marriage. If you or your readers think this makes me a bigot then c'est la vie.
I heard someone recently suggest that all liberal democratic societies have a built-in self-destruction mechanism. Years ago I would have thought this to be nonsense but now I wonder if the concept of unlimited rights for everyone and a determination to never discriminate against anyone in any way is taking us down a very slippery slope.
Let me pose some questions to you which I hope you will take the time to think about carefully before responding to.
Do you believe, in the interest of non-discrimination, that a man should be able to have any number of wives?
Do you believe, in the interest of non-discrimination, that an adult child should be able to marry their mother or father?
Do you believe, in the interest of non-discrimination, that a brother and sister should be able to marry each other?
Do you believe, in the interest of non-discrimination, that a 6'2" tall man, who states that he believes he's a woman, should be able to wear a dress & makeup and stand in the girls bathroom at a local school or swimming centre?
Do you believe, in the interest of non-discrimination, that the concept of separating boys and girls into different sports leagues is completely outdated?
I'm most interested to read your answers. Please note that if you don't agree with all of these initiatives that more than a few people would call you a bigot and believe you to be absolutely wrong.
"Conservativism ... it made no special promises to me as a minority. It neglected me in every way except as a human being who wanted freedom."
Shelby Steele, a brilliant American writer (who happens to be black) has just published a provocative article explaining why Republicans can't compete with Democrats with any minority voter who is seeking grievances to be addressed by the government. You can read the full article here.
For many of my fellow Canadians, most of whom have drank copious amounts of the Obama Kool Aid, it's unfathomable how anyone could possibly vote for the Republicans in America or the Conservatives in Canada. Hey, if your core beliefs state that the mission and duty of government is to address every grievance of every citizen then the Democrats in America and the Liberals & NDP in Canada should absolutely be your parties of choice at each & every election. For the core raison d'être of these parties is the Grievance Resolution Business. To ensure they have a never-ending supply of customers (aka voters) they have to convince more & more people that they are victims, in need of endless help from the government.
Just remember though that all grievances (aka "inequities" aka "human rights violations") need to be paid. And so a key to supporting this belief system is an implicit understanding that the cost of everything around you will go up: Income tax, sales tax, property tax -> Retail purchases, services, food, gasoline, transit, travel, rent, everything. For have no illusions, there will never be an end to what new grievances are dreamed up in the minds of those who feel they're oppressed.
All I ask is that if you believe that all such grievances should be addressed by the government then don't ever complain about having to give more of your time (ie. labor) & money to pay for them. There's simply no denying that the two are inextricably linked.
Dennis Prager, a favourite radio show host of mine, also shares his thoughts on this subject.
If you're a woman in Ontario and describe yourself as "liberal" or "very liberal" then be prepared to shower with naked male strangers at your health club or face the wrath of the Ontario "Human Rights" Commission. I wish I were kidding! Here's the full story.
For the first time ever I watched the vidcast from Texas live. They even dealt with a few of my questions.
There was lots of great stuff but the most brilliant quote of all was when Damon Rexroad said, "When you take away a person's need to provide for themselves, you take away their humanity." I believe this to be the greatest issue of our times between conservatives and liberals. Furthermore, if conservatives lose this debate then America is doomed. That's not an opinion per say but just economic reality.
Now ask yourself why liberal "progressives" the world over are defending such people, citing moral equivalency and portraying them as victims.
I know plenty of Muslim people. Each & every one of them is a great person. They would never act in a manner such as you've seen above. Defending these upstanding citizens is a fine & noble thing to do.
But how on earth did we get to a point where some now believe that defending violent Muslims is somehow "supporting a minority" and thus the right thing to do? Sometimes I wonder if we're once again living in the Europe of the 1930's and the world is about to get turned upside down again en masse.
If you want to see just how depraved some in Canada have become, read this posting by a "progressive" blogger whose tagline claims to be "rolling back the tide of extremism". The only way he could do that would be to detach his fingers from his keyboard. Clearly his brain has been detached from even the tiniest thread of decency for some time. If one didn't know better, you'd think that this pile of filth would be one of those bandana-wearing anarchists seeking to destroy society. Yet up until now he has been a proud supporter of the Liberal Party of Canada.
I read a comment on Small Dead Animals this morning that deserves reposting:
Every leftie should have to join a 12-step program because they are deep in the throes of co-dependency. "Victims" (read Palestinian Gazans) are never responsible for the mess they're in; it's always someone else's fault. 'No need to call the Palestinians to account for their behaviour because they're so obviously (sic) victims.
In the Hamas-Israeli conflict, the leftist brain computes that because Hamas has more casualties it's OBVIOUSLY the Israelis who are at fault--and the Palestinians that need the West's support. The leftist brain seems unable to factor in the the Israelis' competency in protecting their citizens, whereas the Palestinians seem quite happy to ensure collateral damage in their citizenry by storing their weapons arsenals amongst their wives and children. Hey, good way to gain the sympathy of the useful leftist idiots.
It's a curious blindness to see only the "victims'" plight and not their participation in their own misfortune. It's misplaced compassion to think that you can help victims by swathing them in cotton batten when, in fact, you're actually ghettoizing them twice: first, by giving them a pass in their original dysfunction and second, by consigning them to their squalid lives by requiring no responsibility or accountability--in other words, others must fix the situation, not the victims.
To the Church of Liberalism that is. Laura Rosen Cohen offers great insight on the absolute silence of 3 major Canadian Jewish organizations.
I've long observed that, like a mind altering virus, Liberalism prevents Jews from deeply supporting Israel and Christians from deeply supporting Christianity. Self-preservation of one's own family and friends is simply incompatible with the tenets of the Left.
Ms. Rosen Cohen's editorial seems to have had a little effect on these organizations:
Michael Ignatieff has just written an editorial, published by the National Post.
A regular commenter on SDA, who goes by the nickname of "ET", wrote a rebuttal:
There's an essay by Ignatieff in the National Post today. Quite incredible. It outlines clearly his view of himself, Canada, the world. It's not a constructive but a disturbing presentation.
He is moving into the traditional Liberal reductionist strategy of 'let's all feel good, get along together and love each other'. By this I mean that the Liberal strategy has been to minimize and isolate dissent, questions, debate, analysis. Instead of this hard rational interaction which involves us all in the future of our country, the Liberal strategy has been to reject dissent and debate, and therefore the exercise of reason..and move us into living only on the emotional level. And only one emotion - that of acceptance of anything. No questions. No dissent.
Notice how when we have questioned the role of the Bloc in the Coalition, we have been chastized for 'bashing Quebec' rather than criticizing the role of an isolate regional party in decision-making.
Then, Ignatieff moves into the second part of this mantra is the off-repeated nonsense that 'Canada is the best in the world, and the most tolerant and the most...etc". Again, such reductionist claims rejects our right to self-examine ourselves, to question ourselves, to dissent, debate and participate in our future.
Since we are 'the best', and we are 'tolerant', this means that we are NOT ALLOWED TO DOUBT. Such a repression of doubt is actually a key strategy of all Sovereignist Rule.
The Liberal rhetoric doesn't deal with reality. It operates only within the realm of fiction, a fictional account of ourselves and others created by our Sovereign, by our Ruling Party, to calm and soothe us into submission to its rules.
This declared tolerance ignores reality, it rejects the reality that Canada rejects freedom of speech.
The reality that Canada has set up a balkanized immigration framework - one which the Conservatives are working to undo - is ignored. The Liberals set up immigrants into isolate groups, told them to 'stay as you were in the old country', discouraged integration, discouraged collaboration, and thus kept them economically isolated.. and funded them for this narrowness of perspective. In return for their votes. The Conservatives are working to encourage integration, collaboration across cultures, shared future agendas.
Bilingualism set up a framework of power, which, because it is fiction rather than reality, moved this governmental power into the bubble isolation of cabals in Montreal-Ottawa.
Ignatieff's rhetoric promotes what he calls a 'stable government' over differences - and tell us that all that is needed to manage 'all problems' is a stable government. What the heck does that mean? Dictatorships provide stable government; that's their basic nature.
Notice that Ignatieff is betraying that his ideology fits right in with the Old Liberal Modus Operandi - that of the Sovereign Ruler, he who rules over the multitude and masses by divine right, he who makes the decisions for them and rejects their right to 'doubt', to question, to do anything other than 'accept'. Power to the Ruler rather than Power of, by, for, the People.
Then, Ignatieff says of Canada, that: "Our vocation in the world is to help other countries deepen and develop their citizenship as we have deepened and developed our own."
Incredible, the pompous vanity, the arrogant self-congratulatory assertion of supremacy and the idea that such perfection, superior as it is to that of other peoples, means that we must Guide and Rule and Teach the less-perfect in the world. All this arrogance - in one sentence.
So, it's clear that Ignatieff is setting himself up as a Sovereign. Many Canadians feel comfortable with this infrastructure - that reliance on government rather than the self. This has been the ideology since colonization. But I maintain that the new Canada isn't as simple and passive as the Old Canada and won't support being moved back into the realm of the hapless ruled.
In this convoluted diatribe, longtime Democrat hack, Joe Klein, tries to argue the case that Sarah Palin and Ronald Reagan's view of America is a myth, fiction, passé. Instead, he asserts that the "Real America" is more akin to Barack Obama's own life story: "... a multiracial country whose greatest cultural and economic strength is its diversity. It is the country where our children already live and that our parents will never really know, a country with a much greater potential for justice and creativity — and perhaps even prosperity — than the sepia-tinted version of Main Street America."
Having lived in Canada most of my life, I was immediately struck by how familiar this all sounded. Then it struck me, ah yes, this is the official propaganda of the Liberal and NDP parties here in Trudeaupia! Their favoured terminology is slightly different but identical in meaning: Multiculturalism (ie. Saudi Arabian culture is just as valid as Canadian culture), government enforced "social justice", an equitable share for everyone (even if they don't work), etc.
What Mr. Klein carefully failed to mention was that Pierre Trudeau's grand social experiment has fallen apart at the seams. Our health care system is crumbling, criminals rights are valued far above those of law-abiding citizens, so-called "human rights" commissions have been exposed for the illegitimate politically correct kangaroo courts that they are, truth is no longer a defence for free speech, and on & on & on.
Thank you, Mr. Klein. Though I am able to cast no vote in the upcoming American election, thank you for reminding me of why I am repulsed by Barack Obama acquiring power. I only wonder if enough Americans will come to the same conclusion by November 4th.
Note: "Multiculturalism" is a frequently misunderstood term. It does NOT mean "a diversity of ethnicities" in a society. Rather, it defines a philosophy that all cultures that move to a new country are just as equal as the base culture in that new nation. Strident believers of multiculturalism in Canada believe that there is no need to learn English (or French in Quebec), no need to assimilate to Canadian ways, no need to adhere to traditional Canadian values, and no need to follow any Canadian traditions.
Across my nation I know hundreds, if not thousands of people of all races and religions. I also adamantly support legal immigration from all over the world. But I vehemently oppose the end effects of multiculturalism. Besides creating ethnic ghettos in many communities it has helped to infest our society with political correctness ad nauseum. One of the end results of this is that when atrocities like female genital mutilation or honour killings occur then it is racist for others to criticize such things; at least in the twisted PC minds of some it is.
The American "melting pot" model is by far the best immigration model in the world. But dark forces in the U.S. are at work to try to alter it into a Canadian or European multicultural model.
I don't usually republish comments made on this blog but there's a portion of one that is too priceless to be kept hidden in just the comments section.
A fellow who goes under the anonymous moniker of "Floating Abstraction" has been challenging me on my general support of the U.S. and condemnation of Russia's actions in Georgia. Fine, great, super, challenge away. That's what an open discussion/debate is all about.
"One needs to view macro-geopolitics with complete impartial objectivity that is free of bias in order to see the whole picture accurately. In doing so, it makes it easier to try to view events from multiple points of view so that one can try to understand the motivations behind the actions taking place."
He then goes on to assert that because he, the righteous, all knowing one, is free of bias, his opinions trump all others.
I meet people like this all the time. You start having a discussion with them, often about politics, and when they realize that they're losing and/or realize you're never going to agree with them, they pull out their "credentials card". It's usually their academic credentials but is sometimes a magazine article they've read or a Michael Moore documentary they've watched. One time a British guy I met in Europe pointed out that he had 3 sets of letters after his name. He insisted that whenever I wrote him a letter that I include those letters when I addressed him. Needless to say, I chose otherwise.
In this particular case, Mr. Abstraction had been making some good points. He's clearly well read and well informed on the subject of Georgia. But the moment a person crosses that tipping point and convinces themselves that they, and they alone, know THE TRUTH is the moment the discussion must end because any further debate is pointless.
Traditionally such knowers of THE TRUTH have been religious zealots. In North America, they're often Fundamentalist Christians. In other parts of the world they're Fundamentalist Muslims. But in recent years there are new strains of this same narrow-minded mindset:
Liberal Extremists
Environmental Extremists
Examples include Al Gore and David Suzuki, who both declared the debate on global warming to be over and then labeled anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers". Not only are both of them wrong about the debate being over (science doesn't work that way) but they both owe 6 Million Jews and other Nazi Concentration Camp victims a HUGE apology.
Another example is something locally here in Vancouver, where I live. There's an ongoing debate about the pros and cons about the Insite supervised drug injection clinic. Most of the powers at be keep telling us it's a great thing. I disagree. Why? Because I've carefully listened to David Berner, a man with an accomplished track record on drug addiction treatment. I've also listened carefully to what recovered drug addicts have told me. They all think that Insite is a horrific initiative that is only propagating the misery these poor drug addicts are experiencing. But rather than actually debate anyone, the supporters of Insite have taken the same arrogant approach as Mr. Abstraction: "We know THE TRUTH and anyone who disagrees with us is therefore ignorant of THE TRUTH." It's an effective trick to silence all debate. But it's a sadly pathetic trick.
One of the few truths that all mature adults realize is that everyone views the world in a different way. A wise old saying that more people should pay attention to is "not to judge another person until you've walked a mile in their moccasins." Feel free to convince others of your views but the moment you espouse that you are free of bias and thus know THE TRUTH is the moment that you need to go into the corner and take a serious time-out.
Have you been following the absolute horrible atrocities going on in Zimbabwe? I have. Besides Robert Mugabe ending any hope of democracy, there are countless people being murdered and tortured by the thugs of this tyrant.
To date I thought I had heard some of the most ridiculous statements of defense of Mugabe. One came from Khurrum Awan's mentor, Mohammed Elmasry, when he wrote this editorial in the Montreal Gazette. I've also heard some African callers to BBC London assert that Zimbabwe is the "greatest democracy the world has ever seen". Such callers obviously missed the lesson that if you're going to tell a lie, ensure there's some shred of truth to it.
But now the Globe & Mail's life long ultra leftist, Rick Salutin, wins the gold medal for going where no reasonably sane person has ever dared to go before. Jonathan Kay provides his take on Salutin's diatribe, along with a link to the actual editorial as well. Below Kay's article, be sure to read the sick moral relativist ramblings of one "Ambrose99". Thankfully there are enough thoughtful Canadians out there who won't let such hateful screeds go unanswered.
Sadly though, there are many, many people out there who emulate the twisted logic of Salutin and Ambrose99. Listen carefully to them and you will almost always see that their hatred for America and Israel far outweighs any care or support they have for people in this world who are truly being oppressed. And this is why the UN has become a useless organization and why the atrocities in Zimbabwe, Darfur, Burma, and countless other places is allowed to continue. These people have blood on their hands yet are so mired in their own endless schtick that they've actually convinced themselves that they are on the side of the angels. There is no greater delusion!
For more on the Zimbabwe situation, please go here and here.
This morning I was heartened to read some very strong words coming out of newspapers in Ottawa and Vancouver. It reassures me that I'm not the one living in a Twilight Zone. Other Canadians are as outraged as I am.
Here's a glorious article in the Ottawa Citizen by David Warren. Don't let these key parts escape your attention:
The truth is no defence, reasonable intention is no defence, nor material harmlessness, there are no rules of evidence, no precedents, nor case law of any kind.
The commissars running the tribunals need have no legal training, exhibit none, and owe their appointments to networking among leftwing activists.
This is a news story that should be on the front page of every newspaper in Canada, every day until it is resolved.
The Left may think they have found the ideal method to silence anyone who challenges their insane, "politically correct" ideas, but have instead created a monster that can as easily eat them next.
Most of the victims of these neo-Maoist tribunals have been "little people," with nothing like the resources Maclean's magazine has put in play to defend itself and Steyn, and no media reporting whatever. They have been persecuted, stripped of their livelihoods and savings, demonized among their neighbours, made to endure humiliating "re-education" programs - without lawyers, without assistance of any kind -- all for exercising rights that any Canadian would have taken for granted a mere generation ago.
The Vancouver Sun published this article by Ian Mulgrew. Here are some important things he had to say:
The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal is murdering its own reputation by putting on trial an offensive article published by Maclean's magazine two years ago.
No matter how it rules in this case, the tribunal looks like a kangaroo court as a result.
Our human rights bureaucrats are pushovers and our legislation is so loosey-goosey anybody can complain about anything, and does. And why not? To complain is to win -- the standard is hurt feelings, not actual damage or harm -- and the tribunal may "compensate that person for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect or to any of them."
As chairwoman MacNaughton has already reminded everyone, the strict rules of evidence do not apply in this Mickey Mouse world.
Sensitivity is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't trump our constitutional right to free speech: If you don't like Don Rickles, sarcasm or being insulted, develop thicker skin or stay home.
If you talk with any recovered drug addict you'll learn that they had to hit rock bottom before they could healthy again. Perhaps as a society, such a horrendous mockery of justice like this had to be brought out into the open before we could get healthy. For no true democracy, where free speech is held up in high esteem, would ever permit such Kangaroo Courts to operate.
Listening to Big George on BBC London Radio this evening, I've learned of the murder of a 47 year-old father in Cheshire, England. You can read more about the story here and watch videos on it here and here and here.
In the past month that I've been listening to this station, it's very clear that England is a much more socialist country than Canada. And this story should be a wake-up call to all Canadians of what happens when we let the proverbial pendulum of our country's society swing too far over to the liberal "anything goes" way of thinking.
"Pelalusa" is a glorious Spanish-sounding word that means ... well ... absolutely nothing! The word doesn't actually exist. But it sure sounds like it means something!!
While living in Mexico City in 1996/97 I would often ask my friends the meaning of this word and that. One day I asked what "pelalusa" meant, for it just 'sounded' like a word that would mean something en Español. But alas, it does not.
Am I hoping they'll make me a fortune? Hardly! Am I deliberately trying to annoy my readers? Never!
I've launched a new website called Pelalusa.com. Eventually it'll become a fully fledged social networking site but for now it's just a fun travel site, showcasing my journeys and photography. I hope you enjoy it and I always welcome suggestions to improve it.
This new site will be advertising sponsored. What's different about it though is that 50% of the profits (eventually increasing towards 100%) will be donated to philanthropic efforts such as BC Digital Divide. It'll be a global effort, with a particular focus on technology and education.
So I decided to also allow the ads on here too. Please know that I have no control over their content. If some ad does catch your interest, at least you know where the money will be going.
Day & Night
Favourite Quotes
When I was around 12 years old I wrote the following: "Too many get caught up in the noise of everyday life to hear the symphony of what life is really all about."
"The bigger the government grows, the smaller the individual becomes." -- Dennis Prager
"When you take away a person's need to provide for themselves, you take away their humanity." -- Damon Rexroad
"Life is a gift, not an obligation. So make the very best of every single day you're given!" - Donovan Campbell
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money to spend." -- Margaret Thatcher
"You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream-the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits." -- Ronald Reagan
Archive.org
If you'd like to see an amazing site that is full of old commercials, radio programs, and a host of other fascinating memorabilia then click here.
The Cluetrain Manifesto
The Internet is causing an amazing transition to occur about how individuals interact with the companies that they buy from and work for. Most companies are still in denial about even the presence of this change, much to their own peril.
Shown here are the 95 Theses' of the Cluetrain Manifesto:
This manifesto is free and available online. You can read it here.
I've collected together a number of my best flower photos. Each of them has more than sufficient resolution for printing, even as an enlargement. You can download a 46MB Zip file containing many photos by clicking on this image:
0
comments
Every leftie should have to join a 12-step program because they are deep in the throes of co-dependency. "Victims" (read Palestinian Gazans) are never responsible for the mess they're in; it's always someone else's fault. 'No need to call the Palestinians to account for their behaviour because they're so obviously (sic) victims.
In the Hamas-Israeli conflict, the leftist brain computes that because Hamas has more casualties it's OBVIOUSLY the Israelis who are at fault--and the Palestinians that need the West's support. The leftist brain seems unable to factor in the the Israelis' competency in protecting their citizens, whereas the Palestinians seem quite happy to ensure collateral damage in their citizenry by storing their weapons arsenals amongst their wives and children. Hey, good way to gain the sympathy of the useful leftist idiots.
It's a curious blindness to see only the "victims'" plight and not their participation in their own misfortune. It's misplaced compassion to think that you can help victims by swathing them in cotton batten when, in fact, you're actually ghettoizing them twice: first, by giving them a pass in their original dysfunction and second, by consigning them to their squalid lives by requiring no responsibility or accountability--in other words, others must fix the situation, not the victims.
The leftist brain needs help.
Posted by: batb at January 6, 2009 7:44 AM