Idle Thought Inspired by a CBC Comment

In response to a comment by one HenryDavis...

To everyone who has their panties in a wad, loosen up, or go change them. For those on the left, why isn't a person of color up for the Liberal leadership? Same question for the NDP. Maybe you should take a few lessons from the Americans that you so love to bash. Might be that they are far more enlightened than you can ever hope to be.

The answer here is pretty simple. A cursory look at data from the 2006 US census shows us the following:

• 12.4% of the US population is comprised of African-Americans


• 4.4% of the US population is of asian descent


• 6.4% fall under "some other race"

All of this excluding Hispanic/Latino Americans, who are grouped with Caucasians in this particular chart. So, with that large portion of the US population aside, 23.2% of the US population are members of a visible minority.

When we compare this to Canada's 2006 Census, we find:

• 2.5% of the Canadian population is comprised of African-Americans


• South Asian and Chinese descent make up 4 and 3.6% of the population, respectively

And, if you look at the totals, including Hispanics/Latinos, 16.2% of the Canadian population are members of a visible minority.

If you're referring exclusively to individuals of African descent when you refer to "people of color", Mr. Davis, the reason that no such individuals have risen to positions of prominence in the various federal parties is due to a paucity of choice, since, in the US, you have forty-seven times the population to choose from. Even speaking in terms of a percentage of the whole, you have just shy of six times the choice.

Let's have a quick look at a demographic in which the US and Canada are on equal footing. Sex. Hands up, which country has had its highest office held by a woman? I thought so. Hands up, which country has had the leader of any federal political party be a woman? Mmmhmmm. And hands up, which country has had the longer time in which to do so?

I rest my case. "Far more enlightened", my ass.

Asshat of the Day - November 15th, 2008

Now, what with Vancouver's municipal elections going on today, you'd think my beef was with them. Say, with Marc Emery getting more than a thousand votes and placing a narrow fourth among the mayoral candidates. (Come on, people. I know you like pot, but seriously, the guy isn't qualified for the job!)

But no. On the whole, I'm not totally displeased with the way that turned out, and the polling itself was carried out courteously and efficiently. Points to the CoV for that.

No, the gentleman who proved himself to be so idiotic, so aggravating, so... asinine as to have won himself the title for today? A gentleman named Roddy, who chose to flaunt his idiocy in the comments attached to a Gizmodo post about the first of US president-elect Obama's weekly YouTube addresses.

Now, let me preface this by saying that I actually quite like Obama. The man clearly has a head on his shoulders, he's using modern avenues of communication, and he seems to have the political gumption to effect some of the change he's talking about. I don't think he'll live up to all of his campaign promises, but I think he'll do some serious good, both to his country, and to the world as a whole. And I'm all for that.

But even if I hated the man, I'd like to think that I'd find good ol' Roddy's comments repugnant. Let's dig in with both hands and see what we've got here:

"Change Change Change" is the moto.

Who wants a change to even more liberal ideas such as baby killing, socialism, and higher taxes? Sounds like a change for the worse to me.

Gizliberals? I lose respect for you :(

So, let's start with the buzzwords here. "liberal" is a good start, followed by "baby killing", "socialism", and "higher taxes", in the same breath. So, we've established that this is someone who watches Fox News with reverent awe, and covers his eyes when any other show appears. That aside, let's move on.

1. Obama wants to increase abortion to a later term in preganancy. Any abortion is murder and later term is more abominable.

2. Socialism comes by increasing socialism of our banking system (in progress), socialism of our health care, socialism of our education (done), socialism in our taxes (steal from rich, give to poor to make all equal), socialism in our thoughts (taking away free speech, guns, etc, espcially with the "hate crimes bills" and "fairness doctrines", and socialism in our national programs. More government control is always bad. I prefer freedom.

3. Don't go along with the liberal spewed lies. Even obama says 150k in certain speeches. Liberals raise taxes in many areas, not just income tax. We are taxed to death and it will get worse. Lower taxes boost the economy. Higher taxes stiffle it. Our national debt cannot be corrected at this point no matter what, so they will attempt to hyperinflate and tax us with this unseen tax.

America is going down the toilet even faster (repubs and demoncrats are mostly all liberals now)

So, with point #1, our intrepid contender suggests that he's the type who believes that chemical abortion three days after conception would also be murder. Interesting point put forth by another poster - here is someone who, apparently, believes that what routinely happens in doctors' practices and abortion clinics is murder. And what does he do against this heinous serial-killing scheme? He posts to a largely unrelated topic on a gadget blog. Surely, he will go down in the annals of history as a hero.

Point #2 makes it clear that socialism arises from ... socialism. Just socialism broken up into its forays into various subsets of the country as a whole. Apparently prohibiting hate speech is an act of tyranny on a par with hunting down thoughtcrime, and that people should be free to not be educated, starve to death, or die from a lack of healthcare, because this is preferable to "government control". Presumably, this gentleman also objects to red lights telling him that he should stop.

Point #3 is particularly good. We start out with an exhortation not to believe "liberal spewed lies" (clearly, liberals spew lies with the silver tongues that we don't have). Then we proceed to "liberal raise more than income taxes" - which may well be true, but how does that "steal from the rich", as postulated not three sentences earlier? Surely luxury taxes only tax those who purchase luxuries. These may be the rich, but the purchase of luxuries is always optional. If you object to the tax, don't buy the stuff! And then, for a capper, we have "Our national debt cannot be corrected at this point no matter what..." - this is truly rich. The national debt can't be fixed, so the government... shouldn't try? Just go to the various creditors and say, "Well, we're never going to pay you anything, so you may as well forget it!"? Seriously, Roddy, old boy, what the hell?!?

There followed a thorough (though not quite this thorough) debunking of our man Roddy's points, and then he had to stick his big nose in - which was hard, given that his head was, by now, so thoroughly wedged up his own ass...

Abortion is murder. It is premeditated killing of a defenseless infant. This is sick sick sick. I don't understand how anyone thinks "Pro-choice" (for choice to kill) is better than "Pro-life" (for life). Deceived you are...

Yoda, you are not. Let's go look at "infant". Let's see...

infant (n.): A very young human being, from birth to somewhere between six months and two years of age...

Hmm... that doesn't seem to support your cause there, Roddy. But that's the Wiktionary, and I'm sure that's been watered down by we liberal types. How about something a bit more staid, dependable... how about Cambridge?

infant (n.): a baby or a very young child

Hmm... a bit more nebulous, maybe you could work with "baby" there... oh, no, a subsequent search on "baby" suggests that the word only applies to human offspring after birth.

Well, one more try - how about Princeton?

infant (n.): a very young child (birth to 1 year) who has not yet begun to walk or talk

Oooh, sorry, Roddy. That's three. You're out.

So, what do you have for us next?

I shun both demoncrats and republicides. They are both liberals. I am a constitutionalist conservative where I don't think judges can change law, but uphold law. All law should be based on God's law (the God of Israel) and seperation of church and state is to keep state out of church, not the other way around.

Ah-hah! So what we have here is not your ordinary asshat. What we have here is a my-god-is-the-right-god theocratic asshat. Who can't spell, among his other failings. Who believes that the current crop of US Republicans are too liberal. (Perhaps there haven't been enough burnings of heathen books for his liking?) Let's see what else he has to say...

Giz put in the article they are liberals, so I called them on it. Liberalism is akin to satanism imho...

Guh-wha? Liberalism? Satanism? Akin? Is? Sorry, I understand all the words you just wrote, but together... it feels like I've spilled something crazy on my screen. Oh wait. It's you. What else have you got for us?

You either have liberal republicans or more liberal democrats. I disown both and think we need a new party that actually believes in the constitution and in God. This country is not the same by a long shot as was intended...

I believe this would be an appropriate response, but to summarize - not only were the American Founding Fathers not a Christian body, but they actively worked to keep God out of the workings of the new country altogether. So "as was intended" is a popular but totally false assumption.

(In response to another user's post:)You're wrong in every point. www.infowars.com for some enlightenment

You can go to InfoWars yourself if you want to, dear reader. I've been once. I'm not going back. That's too much, even for me.

Raising taxes on the rich is bad because it's the rich paying most of the tax already. Raising taxes yields a slowing economy and less tax revenue. Income tax is unjust as is property tax and a death tax. We're serfs to the government.

Obam-a is stacking his cabinant with anti-gun people and has also voiced limiting guns himself. Look into it more plz. Free speech will be curtailed as has all thru his campaign on people who protested him. Check out the evidence.

Well, Roddy, me boy, little thing - money earned as income is, presumably, representative of the value you've added to your society. By taking a little of that and redistributing it through the provision of services, your government can provide all the things that modern societies so enjoy. Like roads, telecommunication networks, farms, and everything else the government has to subsidize, since they're too colossal for private industry to gather around. The alternative, I suppose, would be a 75% tax on all goods and services, but I'll bet you'd whine about that too. I just bet you would.

As for the death tax - see, that's to avoid the lower classes becoming serfs. I can't think of a better tool against class stratification. Look at it. It follows that if someone gathers a ton of money and passes it on to their children, the fortune will continue to grow and gather more money to it. If money (representative value) is gathered in the hands of a few, they become an aristocracy. It's just a short step from aristocracy to "nobility". But if each generation is largely in charge of earning their own way? Suddenly, you've stirred things up. But stratification is good for budding theocracies, so I suppose I can see where you're coming from. It's not a nice place, but I can see it.

Also, "check out the evidence" without providing citations? In the age of Google? déclassée, Roddy.

*deep breath*

After that point, he appears to have shut up. However, I would argue that in the space above, he more than earned the title of Asshat of the Day.

And we're back in the saddle again. See you all tomorrow!

Well, I'm Back!

Yup. Just when you (my multitudinous readers) thought I was gone, finished, kaput - I'm back.

Y'see, I've been having a busy time with work and other concerns eating up my daylight hours, so I haven't had time to give this blog the love and attention it deserves. But recently, I've been reading things that have pumped the kinetic energy of my blood up to and beyond the boiling point.

So we will be returning to irregularly-updated Asshats of the Day, with special posts reserved for those who truly, deeply deserve it. They're out there. They're not even waiting.

So let's get down to business, eh?

A Poem

Not my usual fare, I know, but this isn't so much a rant as recognition of a brilliant rant by another:

I proudly am an atheist;
I do not share your views.
Imagine how insulting,
When I watch the evening news
And I see you point at folks like me
Indignantly, with rage,
As if we were the lepers
Of a less enlightened age!
No need to watch your language
Or to treat us with respect—
Because demonizing us is still
Politically correct.
You’d never talk like this regarding
Blacks, or Gays, or Jews,
But with atheists, just look at all
The language that you use!
“Obama is a terrorist”—of course
The claim’s obscene;
But “Hagan is an atheist”?
The worst you’ve ever seen?!?
Comparing her to me is now
The lowest of the low?
It’s good I don’t believe in Hell—
I’d tell you where to go.
-- A comment posted on Greg Laden's Blog

This was posted in response to this video, and this subsequent video. What a world it is that we live in.

Carbon Cap Guns

Alright, seriously, people. Comments like these drive me up the wall.

The theory goes like this: if we tax Canadian "bads" then the investment that otherwise would have gone into the Canadian production of "bads" will now be directed to the Canadian production of "goods". NONE (and I mean NONE) of the economic models on which our academic advisors rely anticipate the real life phenomon of capital flight. The models assume that the same amount of capital that would have been invested in Canada before the tax is still available to Canadians after the tax.

Yes. Carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, punitive taxation against producers and consumers alike - they're all going to cost money. We will, initially, see economic reductions. Companies who care more about the bottom line than their reputation and impact on the world will leave. Prices will go up as corporations transfer the cost to their consumers.

However...

By reducing the Corporate Tax rate, it remains beneficial to companies to reside in the country - if they can find a way to get by with fewer emissions. And therein lies the goal of these taxes and fees in the firs place. Companies that can reduce their impact will thrive, because they'll be able to pass those savings along to the consumer and outcompete the corporations that cannot.

Now, the other popular argument on the site:

So it is now true that a company can largely avoid BC's carbon tax by transporting raw resources to Washington state--in trucks that fuel up in Washingtion--where they can burn tax exempt BC natural gas to make final products in Washington mills.

Again, true. However, someone has to do it first. It will mean we'll likely have to suffer a bit. I, for one, am willing to weather the financial woes that will result in an effort to make Canada cleaner and greener for the future. And, forward-thinking (which so few people seem to do these days), when oil smashes through the roof on the beginning of its ascent to the stratosphere, those companies who have already reduced their consumption of fossil fuels won't be feeling the pain as much as their competitors - and then who'll be laughing?

To sum up the two arguments:

1. "I'm fine with going green, but I don't want to spend any money to do so." As Heinlein was so fond of pointing out, TANSTAAFL. If you want the city, the country, and the world to change, it has to start somewhere - and you're going to have to do without, just a bit, to make it happen.


2. "Even if we do it, other people can just get around it." There are countries where murder is, if not legal, not terribly well-policed. Does that mean that other countries should relax their laws as well? You don't drink and drive, but your neighbour does, so even if you don't, it's still dangerous out there, so you might as well, right? Or, to choose an example that confers an advantage - kids at school cheat on a test, but you didn't. Was it just because you were scared of getting caught, or did you do it honestly because it was the right thing to do, even if you might have gotten a better grade by cheating?
   

Seriously, people. Get your heads on straight, get back to work, and pay the damn tax.

Asshat of the Day - September 26th, 2008

For Friday's Asshat of the Day, I bring you: The Discovery Institute, and, to a lesser extent, the Louisiana Legislature for making it all possible.

Now, what's got me pissed off at DI? It's not their championing of alternative fuels - if that were all they got up to, I'd be delighted. It's not their claim that Spore is a good tool for teaching Intelligent Design (they're right, it is - shame on you, Will Wright).

It's the textbook they've produced and are now trying to wiggle into high school curricula:

Explore Evolution

The book very carefully never uses the words "Intelligent Design", and stays a long way away from "Creation", but it's quite simply a tool of "Intelligent Design", née "Creation Science". It introduces controversy where there is none, uses "neo-Darwinism" to make evolution seem like some sort of cult, and uses as one of its sources a man who believes that all life evolves as proto-life stem cells beneath the surface of the earth, and then emerges and self-assembles when the time is right.

Ars Technica does a better job of critiquing the book than I could.

My beef, however, is not only with the book itself, but with the mindset behind both the people who wrote it and those who seek to introduce it into schools. For pity's sake, folks - "God did it!" isn't science. In fact, it's the kind of crappy, baseless argument that engendered the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Assume the presence of an all-powerful, omniscient being, be it a father figure in the sky, a big bowl of flying pasta, or an invisible pink unicorn (Blessed Be Her Holy Hooves). Life evolves on a planet, with the descent of species through mutation and selection pressure. Can you prove that the being, capable of literally anything, did not in fact place everything where it is, fully formed? Can you prove that the world existed even a second ago, and that the being did not place you, the world, and everything else, including your memories of a past, where they are? Of course not. We have no means of testing for that, because if such a being were to do such a thing, they could also be able to ensure that we would be unable to distinguish it from a world that developed over time.

So if you say "God/Allah/TFSM did it, and you can't prove otherwise!", you're right, at least about the last part. But if someone examines creatures and fossils, and finds the properties of both, and says "Well, according to all the evidence that is visible to mere mortals, this whole thing could easily have happened without any intercession from any intelligent force", "Yeah, but it COULD have." is not a valid counter-argument. More to the point, it's not science. Science involves things that it is possible to disprove. Theology, by definition, involves things that must be taken on faith.

So, unless you plan to start teaching evolution, chemistry, physics, and math in Sunday school, don't expect "God created us!" to show up in a class designed to teach that which we can see and test, and therefore do not have to take on faith.

Asshat of the Day - September 25th, 2008

CNSA

Don't get me wrong - China has done many things that have impressed me of late. Their human rights record is still pretty black, but their progress in alternative energy research, the production of the Olympics, new housing techniques and the ability to recognize a sinking ship when they see it (the US economy) are all laudable.

But this? That was unimpressive.

Seriously, guys. You've got the technology. You've got the money to buy all the scientists you might need, and a population from which you can recruit a whole bunch of really smart people, who in turn will probably work for far less than their Western equivalents. This whole launch and first spacewalk thing is practically a done deal.

Presenting a photoshopped launch picture and the associated article? It damages your credibility, hurts your reputation, and makes everyone in the world take everything else you say with a grain of salt. If it had been something terse, like "Shenzhou 7 launch a success.", you could probably be forgiven. There are no end of criminal trials/world events for which most of the story was probably already written before the event occurred, so the paper/radio/tv announcement could be made as quickly as possible. But including nonexistent dialogue?

Sorry, CNSA. You fumbled the ball big time here. And so you receive the title of Asshat of the Day.

Asshat of the Day - September 24th, 2008

This one was easy - even posted a day late.

George W. Bush

I mean, come on. A seven hundred BILLION dollar bailout?

If you want to spend more than the Iraq war has cost (on paper, at least) to date, earmark it for infrastructure development. The US hasn't seen major infrastructure spending since the 1950s, and never has it needed it more than today. But come on! You're nearly twelve trillion dollars in debt, and your solution to the credit crisis is to spend more? Where are you going to get it? I can't think of any country who would extend you that much in additional credit. Which leaves you one option: print money.

So, you put an additional seven hundred (what was that? Oh yes) billion dollars into circulation. What, pray, would this do to your dollar's value? Oh, right. Ask the Germans, right before World War II, say. They might be able to tell you.

Now, on top of all this, there are a couple trillion dollars of imaginary money that's sitting and souring in the financial markets. Seven hundred billion dollars, as mind-boggling a sum as it is, won't actually solve the problem unless the government takes a hand in legislating the economy, rather than the hands-off laissez-faire technique which has been the hallmark of the "free market" politicians since the Nixon era. If they don't, all it'll do is keep the eggs in the air for a few more months.

Which may be the point.

If he can keep it going a few more months, Bush can dump the economy on the next person to take office... in legal terms, the "chump."

Therefore, I give you the Asshat of the Day. George W. Bush.

Asshat of the Day - August 20th, 2008

Petrol Pump Pilgrims Keep Faith

...

Okay. I thought this was ridiculous when I first read about it, but we've moved from ridiculous to ludicrous.

"We don't have anybody else to turn to but God," Mr Twyman told the BBC. "We have to turn these problems over to God and not to man."

So, to control the price of a commodity extracted and traded by Man, you turn to a divine power? If God doesn't listen to all the children in war-torn countries who pray that their parents survive the night, why on Earth would He listen to people whining about gas prices?

This week the group returned to the site of their first prayer meeting to celebrate. Singing "We shall overcome," they changed the words of the well-known hymn to "We'll have lower gas prices".

I'm... actually speechless. You take a song that's a lovely testament of faith, and you turn it into a "thanks, God, for making it easier to fill my tank"? I am probably the most lapsed Catholic in the world, and I still find that abhorrent. I mean, good ol' J.C. and his disciples were rather famously against the hoarding of money, so really, high gas prices are doing you a favour by bringing you closer to God.

Mr Twyman is sceptical that market forces might be responsible for the lower prices. But he and his prayer warriors have changed their motoring habits.

Ahh... do I detect a hint of doubt there? The market upon which gasoline is bought and traded is an artifact of man, the supply of oil finite and its extraction, again, limited by man's own capabilities. God may be comforting to turn to in times of trouble, and faith a ward against the cruelties of the world... but don't go crediting Him with things that aren't His work.

*sighs*

Asshat of the Day - August 14th, 2008

Today's Asshat of the Day is our reigning champion, the Bush administration, and one of its Horsemen (or Horsewomen) of the Idiocalypse, the Secretary of Transportation, Mary E. Peters.

The article, you ask? Here we are: Drop in Miles Driven Is Depleting Highway Fund; Loan From Mass Transit Is Urged

Let's get into it...

The secretary, Mary E. Peters, said the short-term solution would be for the Highway Trust Fund’s highway account to borrow money from the fund’s mass transit account, a step that would balance the accounts as highway travel declines and use of mass transit increases. Both trends are being driven by the high price of gasoline and diesel fuel.

Now... this isn't all Mrs. Peters' fault; part of it has to do with the colossal lack of infrastructure spending that accompanied the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude that has seemed to dominate American politics for the last few decades. Always better to offer a tax cut than to actually keep the infrastructure in good shape, eh?

However.

Things are now broke. They need fixing. However, the US government is also broke. Hence the rampant borrowing from Social Security, among other funds. This idea, though, beggars credulity.

You depend on a tax from the people who use the highway system to maintain the highway system. Fewer people now use the system. As the free market economy that the administration professes to be such a fan of would dictate, if fewer people use a service, but the service quality is fixed at a certain level, the price to those few should increase. Ergo, a rise in the gas tax to support infrastructure spending. It's the same in any profession - the more specialized a tool becomes, the more it costs an individual user.

Heck, you could even make more roads toll roads electronically; we did it with the 407 and that road is self-supporting now.

But both of those involve raising taxes or charging people more money, which the Republicans are traditionally against. What to do, what to do... Oh, I've got it! Let's take money from the transit system that desperately need infrastructure improvements, right now, and spend it on roads that they don't use! Brilliant! Only pinko Commies ride public transit anyway!

Whoa... a few too many shots of sarcanol there. Bit dizzy.

So, Mrs. Peters: yes, the highways, bridges, and roads need improvement. They've been needing it for a long time. But borrowing from another fund isn't a solution, because the transit system is going to need that money. You're just going to have to bite the bullet and raise taxes. Hell, your administration has the lowest approval rating in US History - what's another few points?