Rational Radical

Here are two faces of evil.  Yes, evil comes in all shapes and sizes and is not usually what we think it looks like (from the Star): By the way, he’s a registered sex offender, neighbours often called to complain about him, police had clear reports that the children were living in squalor but they never investigated beyond talking to him outside his home!  For those who don’t know, these are the evil monsters who kidnapped and 11 year old girl; he had sex with her when she was 13 or 14 at least and created two unfortunate babies.  Thankfully they’re American, so they’ll be in jail for life–for real.  If it happened in Canada, they would each serve about five years maximum, since they didn’t actually kill the girl.  Take a look at the faces of evil:

Pair pleads not guilty to 29 counts in abduction

REUTERS/EL DORADO COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE/HANDOUT

Phillip Garrido (left), accused in the kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard, and Nancy Garrido (right) are shown in this booking mugshot released to Reuters August 27, 2009.

I’ve always hated the Canadian Senate, which is a huge waste of tax dollars and gives way too much unaccounted for power to unelected and often unqualified friends and associates of the Prime Minister of the day and other politicians.  The Star article below helps show why we should abolish this system ASAP!  Harper promised to do so (or at least modify it) but of course just did what every PM before him did–stacked it with people who can support or promote his beliefs:

MONTREAL – One of Canada’s new senators planned to keep working as a TV hockey analyst, and another hoped to remain mayor of his Quebec town. Jacques Demers will still be commenting on Montreal Canadiens games this season and says he’ll also do commentary for RDS network at the Olympics. “I’d asked the people from Mr. Harper’s office and they got back to me and said it was no problem that I could continue doing both jobs,” Demers said in an interview today. “I don’t know the schedule. I don’t know what’s the plan, how many times they meet at the Senate. I don’t know none of that right now. But obviously, at Mr. Harper’s level, the people I’ve spoken to, there was no problem.”

Claude Carignan wasn’t so lucky. After Carignan expressed his wish to remain mayor of St-Eustache, the Prime Minister’s Office told The Canadian Press today that he has decided against seeking re-election this fall. The mayor said earlier he would consult with lawyers over whether he could keep both jobs, but one constitutional lawyer told The Canadian Press that Quebec law would prevent him from doing both.

Word that both men would hope to keep their day jobs while drawing $132,000 for sitting in Canada’s Parliament raises some questions about the role of the red chamber: What does it do? What authority does it have? And does Canada need it? Parliamentary expert Ned Franks estimates that, in the last decade, senators have spent an average of 70 days a year sitting in Parliament, which he says is about a third of what the average Canadian spends at work. Senators also adhere to looser conflict-of-interest rules than MPs, he added. The original purpose of the Senate, he said, was to allow wealthy landowners to gain political power while maintaining their personal incomes. “Sitting in the senate and having another job is not impossible,” said Franks, professor emeritus at Queen’s University.

Many Canadians might not be aware of this but, in theory, the Senate is virtually identical to the House of Commons in its role and power. On one side of the Peace Tower, the green-coloured House of Commons can propose legisation, vote on it three times, study it at parliamentary committees, and send it down the hallway for final approval. So it’s shuffled off to the other side of the Peace Tower – to the red senatorial chamber. On this side, members can also propose legisation, vote on it three times, study it at parliamentary committees and send it down the hallway for final approval. Like their cousins in the Commons, senators can sit in cabinet and, in theory, also become prime minister.

But there’s a big difference between the two chambers: one side is elected, the other side isn’t. For that reason the Senate rarely dares to block legislation sent its way by the democratically elected Commons, and proposes far fewer bills than its elected counterpart down the hall. There’s another major difference between the chambers: the House of Commons is frequently a frenzied forum for partisan shouting matches and name-calling.

Senators, who don’t have to fear such trifling matters as getting re-elected, tend to treat each other more respectfully and, when they discuss legislation, are far less likely to spew partisan soundbites for the assembled TV cameras. Very few TV cameras bother covering the Senate’s activities. In fact, cameras aren’t even allowed inside the chamber. At least one senator did become a leader of the opposition. Former prime minister Arthur Meighen was named to the Senate and, from his plush red chair, was chosen leader of the Conservative party in 1941.

The power doesn’t end there. If the Governor General one day deems that Demers, the jovial hockey analyst, has the confidence of the House of Commons, he could technically become the country’s prime minister, Franks said. But on the day of their nominations, these senate rookies seemed to have their ambitions set on less lofty places than the prime minister’s chair. “We’re going to check with lawyers to see if there’s a possibility to keep both (jobs), but that’s what I intend to do if I get the opportunity,” Carignan said when asked if he plans to give up the mayor’s seat in the city of St-Eustache, northwest of Montreal. The 44-year-old, who ran unsuccessfully for the Conservatives in last fall’s federal election, also has a private law practice and sits as vice-president of Quebec’s union of municipalities. He said he wanted to give up his two other jobs while remaining mayor and senator. But constitutional experts say that’s impossible and, late today, the Prime Minister’s Office told The Canadian Press he would resign as mayor.

Stephane Beaulac, a constitutional lawyer at the Universite de Montreal, said that kind of double-dipping would be impossible. “It’s not because of federal law – it’s because of provincial law that he becomes unable to keep his functions as mayor,” Beaulac said.

Harper has tried to democratize the Senate by creating elections and setting term limits. But a number of experts, provincial premiers, and the opposition say that could create new problems: more partisanship, legislative gridlock between the houses of Parliament, and less power for under-represented Western Canada. Changing the seat distribution would require contentious constitutional negotiations between the provinces and federal government.

Rejean Tremblay, a sports columnist at La Presse newspaper, offers another possible solution to the Senate jigsaw puzzle. It’s the same solution favoured by the Bloc Quebecois and NDP: abolition. He wrote in Friday’s paper that he admired Demers a friend. But he questioned how the semi-literate hockey coach could serve in Canada’s Parliament. “How will Jacques Demers be able to carry on a conversation with senators like Jean-Claude Rivest and Marcel Prud’homme, two seasoned politicians who are great specialists in Canadian affairs? How will he be able to prepare for debates?” Tremblay wrote. “I’ve been in favour of abolishing the Senate for many years. Maybe this (Demers nomination) is a step in the right direction.”

Okay, just a brief rundown:

1) MT, the murderer (or at least the one who caused Stephanie Rengel’s death–I’m not going to bother writing out MT’s full name), is appealing her conviction.  Not surprising of course, since anyone in her position would.  But I’m afraid of what our just-ass system might do, because

2) A previous case involving the acquittal of a possible murderer is being re-tried because the original judge refused to allow evidence about a “tear drop” tattoo he had earned shortly after the murder.  Along with that, the judge refuse to allow evidence showing what it could mean (including the murder of a rival gang member) and testimony from other gang members implicating him in the murder.  Thankfully they’ll go back to trial on this, but the judge who refused the evidence should be fired.  And this kind of shit–refusing to allow very relevant evidence to be admitted–happens ALL THE TIME. Yet,

3) If a victim of a sexual assault dares bring the attacker to court, the victims’s sexual and other history will be used against him/he, a) helping to let the argument for birth control to go free, and b) deterring victims from going to trial in the first place, or even pressing charges.  We live in a twisted, twisted world, where “justice” is a joke.

On a related note, more evidence is being heard that a Canadian psychologist at McGill University (recent argument for birth control, Barbara B. Sherwin) allowed her name to be put on as sole author for a research article claiming that a drug made by Wyeth, which is being sued by many people for harming them, was okay (her drug in particular might be okay, but Wyeth has been up to some pretty evil shit, as I’ve written about before (look at the 6th story at the bottom and then in the Comments page below that).  She claims it’s the only time she did that and that the article itself “represented sound and thorough scholarship and in no way could be construed as promotion for any particular product or company.” I’d have to find that article, but sorry Dr. Sherwin if I don’t believe a word you say–or did you really write that excuse yourself??

As usual, life has a way of keeping me away from this blog.  However, I am still pissed that this idiot “Justice” Secretary in Scotland decided to show “compassion” for one of the worst terrorists in history. So what if he had three months left to live due to cancer?  Let him rot in jail…make a stinking cot his death bed.  This act of stupidity by the Scottish Argument for Birth Control, Kenny MacAskill has basically traded “compassion” for one evil fuck against a lifetime of anger and remorse for tens of thousands of family and friends of those innocent people whose lives this monster helped snuff out.  The Comments section contains the story.

TheStar.com | World | Libya’s cheers ignite outrage around world

Libya’s cheers ignite outrage around world- But warm welcome for Lockerbie bomber unlikely to hurt thawing relations with West, analysts say

Key minister goes M.I.A. as anger grows

and

Minister Peter Van Loan plays hide-and-seek

I normally don’t have much sympathy for people when they break laws outside of Canada and then expect our gov’t to come and save them, unless the law is something that a “normal” person wouldn’t expect or condone (e.g., stoning a woman for speaking her mind or hanging gays/lesbians in some barbaric country), if the person is innocent (we’ve had a number of those cases recently, including the one referred to in the COMMENTS section), or if the punishment really doesn’t fit the crime (e.g., cutting someone’s fingers off for stealing a chocolate).

I also have no sympathy for “Canadians” who were not born here yet come at some point, do the bare minimum to get their “Canadian status,” reap the benefits of our health care and/or welfare system, contribute little or nothing to our country, bring over family members to also milk us for all we’re worth, and then fuck off to their homeland (or some other country) to spend 95% of their time (until they or a loved one needs more “free” services from us), and then bitch at the Canadian gov’t to rescue them if things get rough wherever they’re staying.  To those people I say, “Fuck you, stay where you are, suffer the consequences, and stop sucking off of my very heavy tax load!!”

Before anyone starts crying “xenophobia,” I am not claiming that all New Canadians are like this. Of course many immigrants/new citizens contribute very much to Canada. And I have no problem with people spending SOME time back in their homeland–many times it’s necessary.  But I take offence at a certain type of leech–the type described above–most of whom never bother to learn our language or culture and laugh/spit at our generosity.  Again, I’m not saying everyone is like this. And anyone who claims not to know at least one person like this is naive, ignorant, or has not expanded his/her horizons.  In my many different jobs, I’ve had ample opportunities to see many such people.  They are leeches and should not be in our country.  By the way, I feel the same way about Canadians or other “Westerners” who do the same thing in foreign countries–although I don’t know of any country as stupidly “generous” as Canada to foreign parasites.

But I digress.  The story referred to in the COMMENTS section is a case where the gov’t fucked up big time.  And the scumbags involved are too cowardly to allow themselves to be held accountable.  And while this poor, innocent woman suffered for three months and was called a fraud by an ignorant asshole paid for by our taxes, tens (hundreds?) of thousands of scumbag warlords, gangsters, and other murderous scum and their family get to stay in Canada for many years, polluting our country with their vileness.

Van Loan’s staff prove adept at dodging 

TARA WALTON/TORONTO STAR FILE PHOTO

Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan couldn’t answer questions because “his schedule is pretty full up in the riding,” his assistant told the Star.

Now, I normally find the use of “gay” offensive when used to insult a person/thing and find it even more offensive when people who use it in that manner say, “but it has nothing to do with gays, so why do they find it insulting/offensive?”  No, I’m not overly PC and no I’m not even gay.

But I always find ignorance offensive.  And people who do not understand how “gay” and “fag” can be very offensive when used the way they usually are, are truly ignorant of them impact of history and language. And they are not very smart, either, to not be able to at least comprehend the problem with these terms.

They are the same people who say, if they’re not black, “But my black friend says, “nigger” so why can’t I?”  For the record, I use the term “nigger” regularly, but not to refer to a black person in an insulting manner and not as in “Yo nigga,” because I myself am not black. But I digress.

The point is, my use of the term “gay” in the headline is ironic, as I hope is evident if you read the story in the Comments section below. In short, once again professionals–psychologists in this case–have to come out (no pun intended) and stress that you can’t “cure” gays, nor is there anything to cure.

By the way, one of the funniest attempts to “cure” gays came when it was discovered that gay men, on average, have less testosterone than straight men. The “solution”?  Pump the gay men full of testosterone.  The result?  A bunch of extremely horny gay men! (Testosterone is the hormone linked to sexual urges in both men and women.)

I don’t know how long this link will last, but it’s supposed to take you to the FACEBOOK PAGE of SHANNON SOADY, the Recent Argument for the Death Penalty who tried to decapitate his mother and left her for dead! Or, at the very least he watched her boyfriend, James Thorpe, do it and then left with that other Argument for the Death Penalty (thanks for the news story, CM).

With Facebook and the fact that many people still do not limit their Facebook profiles, we are in the odd circumstance where we can catch a glimpse into the lives of apparent monsters such as this guy.  The Comments section contains the story.

Freud believed humans are innately “savage infants” who need society (via parents/caregivers and the subsequent development of a “superego” or conscience and judgment) to keep us in line.

Rogers believed humans are innately “good” but society/caregivers “corrupt” and prevent us from becoming “all that we can become.”

So who is right?  It’s a tough call.  Humans should be innately “selfish,” as we need to be in order to survive. Even taking care of others can be seen as “selfish” from a variety of perspectives/philosophies (e.g., parents taking care of children because they carry their genes, which allow them to live “forever,” according to Richard Dawkins). But there ARE people who seem to be “good” for the sake of being good.  Are they going against human nature?  I don’t know.

But I do believe that, even if most people aren’t “evil,” they are inherently selfish and self-serving. It’s just that some of them take it too far, as these recent stories show. And even if you argue that some of these people are not “bad” but are merely people caught in “bad” situations, they definitely lack character. And some truly lack any humanity (some of the stories are also copied in the Comments below, since the links may become inactive after a few weeks):

1) She may not be a terrible person most of the time (or maybe she is), but she certainly did a horrible thing to a lot of people who depended on her to make their weddings a day to remember.  Going bankrupt is not a crime and neither is trying to save your company. But don’t screw people over on their wedding, and then don’t be a coward and lie to them about it afterward. She dropped the ball and has NO CHARACTER because she did not set things right and only made them worse.

2) We all know that almost no Toronto politician has ANY character, and they are truly the most self-serving, greedy, egotistical, delusional, petty, childish, dysfunctional group of supposed adults you’ll ever encounter. I wrote before that Council was going to vote on a proposal to allow them to use OUR money to pay for any lawsuits they file against anyone who pisses them off. This would be the end of democracy. Well, Council voted AGAINST this proposal, BUT they did vote to give Sandra Bussin as much money as she needs–perhaps $150,000!!!–to go after the editor of a tiny local paper who spoke poorly of her. Basically, they are going to vote on this crap on a case-by-case basis, which means that they have basically voted YES to the proposal.  But this way they can say they voted “no” and then try to slip each scumbag cowardly vote in whenever we’re distracted by other problems they help create (strike anybody?).

3) This is the 40th anniversary of the horrific murders committed by Charles Manson and his mini-cult/family.  He may be delusional, but he is also pure evil.  Pure.  Evil.  And he symbolizes the death of the “love and peace” era of the 60’s.

4) Okay, these people aren’t “bad” or “evil,” but they are idiots. And idiots who cannot think for themselves are the type of people who help ruin society. Check out the Burger King story in the Comments section to see what happens when you don’t study…

5) This woman’s horrible actions killed her and her five innocent children, along with two other innocent victims. The people around her were either too stupid/blind/ignorant/apathetic to realize that she had a problem, or they knew and did nothing about it. I know many people with substance abuse issues become really good at hiding their problems, but there are usually enough clues if we bother to look hard enough.

6) I’ve written before about one of the most vile and greedy–fuck it, I’m going with EVIL–acts that those in the know realize goes on all the time, but about which most of the public has no idea.  I’m talking about those scumbag “doctors” and “scientists/researchers” who KNOW that they are involved with drugs or other products that can cause serious harm to innocent people but say nothing because they want the $$. Then again, those who DO stand up have their lives ruined by the EVIL companies, hospitals and universities, as this story of heroes demonstrates; the story is about evil scumbags, but the second link is to the real heroes of the world. Well, here is the latest story about scumbags who should lose their jobs, homes and lives for allowing this shit to happen.  Of course, the same fate should befall all of the evil, greedy scum who contributed to the conspiracy to sell harmful drugs to unwitting people who naively believed that the drugs were safe, since a supposed doctor approved of them.

Check out the comment section below to see the rest of this and another story I thought I had posted last month. I have no doubt it is true, and I trust FunkyMe72 can back me up:

Green bin program a mess: City denies it, but workers say they routinely dump organics into regular garbage

TARA WALTON/TORONTO STAR

And the story below it (the one from last month I forgot to post) symbolizes all that is wrong with Toronto’s City Council and especially Mayor Miller:

Fix green bin mess! City councillors demand independent audit after Star finds major flaws in recycling program

 COLIN MCCONNELL/TORONTO STAR - Bags of green bin waste are stored at Toronto’s Bermondsey Rd. recycling depot, awaiting their fate. (June 3, 2009)

(Thanks, FTP!)  Hey, I want this strike to end as quickly as the next guy, but I’m so pissed that Toronto Council and the mayor with no balls, Miller, basically gave the union everything they wanted.  Show me I’m wrong…Anyway, here is the list of those who did and did not cave.  Miller is such a douche…

Following is a list of how councillors present voted on the contract agreements. Both deals were passed, 21-17.

YES VOTES

Maria Augimeri (York Centre) - Yes

Sandra Bussin (Beaches-East York) - Yes

Shelley Carroll (Don Valley East) — Yes

Raymond Cho (Scarborough-Rouge River) — Yes

Janet Davis (Beaches-East York) — Yes

Glenn de Baeremaeker (Scarborough Centre) — Yes

Frank Di Giorgio (York South-Weston) — Yes

Paula Fletcher (Toronto-Danforth) — Yes

Adam Giambrone (Davenport) — Yes

Mark Grimes (Etobicoke Lakeshore) — Yes

Suzan Hall (Etobicoke North) — Yes

A.A. Heaps (Scarborough Southwest) — Yes

Doug Holyday (Etobicoke Centre) — Yes

Pam McConnell (Toronto Centre-Rosedale) — Yes

Joe Mihevc (St. Paul’s) — Yes

David Miller (Mayor) - Yes

Joe Pantalone (Trinity-Spadina) — Yes

Gord Perks (Parkdale-High Park) — Yes

Anthony Perruzza (York West) — Yes

Bill Saundercook (Parkdale-High Park) — Yes

Adam Vaughan (Trinity-Spadina) — Yes

NO VOTES

Paul Ainslie (Scarborough East) - No

Brian Ashton (Scarborough Southwest) — No

Mike Del Grande (Scarborough-Agincourt) — No

Mike Feldman (York Centre) - No

Rob Ford (Etobicoke North) — No

Cliff Jenkins (Don Valley West) — No

Norm Kelly (Scarborough-Agincourt) — No

Chin Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River) — No

Peter Milczyn (Etobicoke-Lakeshore) — No* (Only pertains to vote on Local 416 agreement)

Denzil Minnan-Wong (Don Valley East) — No

Ron Moeser (Scarborough East) - No

Frances Nunziata (York South-Weston) — No

Case Ootes (Toronto-Danforth) — No

John Parker (Don Valley West) — No

David Shiner (Willowdale) — No * (Only pertains to vote on Local 79 agreement)

Karen Stintz (Eglinton-Lawrence) — No

Michael Thompson (Scarborough Centre) — No

Michael Walker (St. Paul’s) — No