Homos For Hitler

Some of you may have received a note from me recently, indicating a change to my email address. Or perhaps you tried to access my website and could not. I was planning to give up having my own domain, as I was faced with the choice of spending more money and time to bring more visitors to the site, or just letting it go. And I had made up my mind to let it go, but to be frank, this decision was sped up by the actions of the dillhole who used to host my domain, a dillhole who turns out to be a racist and Nazi sympathizer.

The eruption in our relationship happened probably a month ago, but I have taken this time to mull over my reaction to this incident, because I didn't want to just "go off". I wanted to consider all the angles. Also the dillhole and I know a number of people in common, and I wanted to possibly take their feelings into account as well. These are people I respect and admire and love on several levels, so my first words on this post go to them, so that they know that while I am angry, I feel justified in saying what I say here, and I mean them no disrespect as individuals.

That being said, here's the deal. The Fragrant Missus and I met this dipshit--let's call him The Free Speech Fag (since he doesn't mind being called a fag, it's "stupid" to which he objects, according to him) several years ago. At first, we were fast friends. The Free Speech Fag was funny and opinionated and not only was he briefly dating another friend of ours, but we knew and adored his cousin. (We still do.)

But then the alarm bells started to go off. At a party we had at our place one night, the Free Speech Fag spoke at length about how he doesn't like people of other races. He felt Lebanese people were "greasy". He could not date people of other races, and, in fact, had been kicked off of gay dating sites for having a racist profile (i.e. POCs need not apply). 

Other guests called him out on his statements. One said that, being a gay man exposed to homophobia, he could not imagine how the Free Speech Fag could possibly entertain intolerance himself. And when another guest pointed out that my wife is descended of PoCs, the Free Speech Fag shrugged and said, "I know."

Now, in hindsight, we should have shown the fucker the door right then and there. But we didn't. Oh, there was a cooling off period, but we maintained a friendship with him, thinking perhaps he was just going through a rough patch or something.

But then we started noticing other weird shit. Like, I quickly learned that I couldn't discuss feminist issues with him, because Free Speech Fag felt that he had the right to hit a woman who hit him first. He also made bizarre comments about how women financially exploit men. I think this is an odd remark to make when clearly, the patriarchy financially exploits women by consistently refusing them wage parity, but he refused to see that. And when we tried to talk about how many women are murdered at the hands of (male) domestic partners, he dismissed that argument by saying that these were a few isolated incidents, and those men were "crazy."

Oh, and when we talked to him about how statistics indicate that sexual harassment and abuse and exploitation of women by men is epidemic and systemic, his response was, "Well, men are sexually abused, too."

Yeah, he's one of those.

So not only was Free Speech Fag a racist, he was also an MRA. And after he broke up with our friend, he then bought a house with a heterosexual, polyamorous friend of his who couldn't save up enough money for a down payment on his own because of his gambling issue. And the polyamorous friend continued his polyamorous lifestyle, which Free Speech Fag referred to as "The Parade of Whores". It appeared that the relationships were informed and consensual, but Free Speech Fag, perhaps out of frustration and envy, still felt it necessary to pass judgement on both the "man-child" room-mate and his partners.

In fact, Free Speech Fag and the roomie had a security system installed. And I distinctly remember being at supper with Free Speech Fag one night during which he spent the entire meal tracking the roomie and his guest through the house via Fag's cellphone.

"He didn't lock the front door. Oh, now they're in the kitchen..."

Like *we* gave a shit. But he most certainly did. To a very creepy, inappropriate, invasive degree.

So about a year ago, Polyamorous Roomie got transferred out of province and Free Speech Fag went with him. By this time, the Fragrant Missus and I were relieved to see him go, although we maintained a sporadic contact on Facebook. And really, we shouldn't have been surprised when in the wake of the Charlottesville race clashes, he posted that he feels racists are entitled to free speech.

Well, no. No, they aren't, and in Canada, they do not have a legal right to promote hatred and violence. This fact was pointed out to him, and when he demanded to see the evidence, the poster indicated that there are plenty of online sources for the Criminal Code of Canada. Free Speech Fag got all shirty and called the poster an "asshole".

A heated debate involving Free Speech Fag, me, the Fragrant Missus and our friend, N. ensued. N., who did not appreciate either the incoherent ramblings of a Nazi sympathizer or her boyfriend being called an asshole, immediately blocked Free Speech Fag. I had already unfriended him, but followed suit with my own blocking maneuver. 

Nevertheless, he kept up an email correspondence with the Fragrant Missus, reassuring her that he doesn't support the Nazis, just their right to spew hatred as long as they don't break the law with violence. In fact, he moaned that he was actually the victim in this disagreement, and that we weren't "giving him a chance to explain himself", and that we refused to see the inherent nobility of his actions by defending hateful people's right to express hateful things (not his exact words, but certainly his sentiment).

The Fragrant Missus kept up a steady stream of anti-Nazi posts and memes on her FB, and finally, he sent her an email that said, "I would comment on your post to try and clarify my position, but I've come to the conclusion that I am not mature enough or strong enough to post something and then have someone call me stupid and not be able to defend myself without losing a friend [i.e. my wife]. We can arrest the people uttering threats, but we still have to let the White Supremacists march and protest. As long as they don't utter death threats of use symbols of historical death threats. The Church uses symbols of death threats and overt hate speech every Sunday."

So at this point, I lost my temper. I still had access to him via email, and so I sent him this response:

"Fuck you, it's not the same thing, you douchebag, and what you're arguing here is called false equivalence. A bunch of hateful and violent white assholes calling for the active slaughter of OTHER PEOPLE for no other reason than that those people are a different colour or religion is NOT the same thing as a crucifix, just because it has a dead Jewish carpenter on it. And if that's the best you can do as far as arguments go, then you have lost all credibility and clearly do not have a firm grasp of the issues.

"But that's pretty obvious, isn't it? You try to come off as some wildly liberal peacenik for allowing Nazi's (Nazis, FFS) their right to march and shout homophobic/racist slogans, even though you yourself said that you have lived through people saying 'Die, faggot' to you. For the love of Christ, grow the fuck up. It's one thing if YOU are willing to endure that level of hostility, but I can't for the life of me imagine why you would permit that to happen to anyone else you cared about in a similar situation. Your thoughts about free speech were quite prevalent in 1934, and yanno what? By then, it was already too late. History has taught us that allowing these assholes a voice invariably and inevitably gives them the power to succeed. IF YOU ARE NOT A RACIST YOURSELF, OR HARBOUR RACIST SENTIMENTS, YOU MUST STAND UP AGAINST HATE SPEECH.

"This is my last word to you on this subject. I am no longer willing to engage in a discussion about this with you or anyone who shares your views. In closing, I will only say this; it has been said to you before, but I am going to make it very clear to you this last time:

"The ONE thing we can agree on surrounding this issue is that certain words and actions have consequences attached to them. You clearly don't think this applies to you, because when you are hurtful and appallingly douchey, you cop out by saying, 'I just tell it like it is.' This makes you a huge asshole and unwilling to take responsibility for your words and actions. But the fact of the matter is that consequences happen whether you accept them or not. People stop talking to you, they drop out of your life. They can no longer deal with your behaviours or your cruelty or your straight up self-indulgent fucking bullshit.

"And that's what is happening right now. You and I are done, N. is done with you...and this is a direct consequence of you being a Nazi sympathizer and refusing to acknowledge it and then camoflaging it with some bullshit argument about free speech.  Oh, I know you think it's because we refuse to hear you out, or we 'just don't get it'.

"But your behaviours and statements in the past absolutely point to someone who wants to be able to say what he wants whenever he wants, no matter how hurtful or appalling, and not hear the feedback when people tell him what a fucking shit brick he is.

"So fuck off."

Now, that *should* have been the last of it. Everything that could have possibly been said on the issue had been said. Or so I thought. But the one tiny piece of power that Free Speech Fag had left to exercise was that my domain was hosted on his server. So shortly after that email was sent, he informed my wife that he had blocked me from FB and email and that he was going to delete my domain within the week if we didn't find another server. She said she would look into it, but as indicated at the top of this post, I was inclined to give it up anyway.

But then, a few days after that, he sent the Fragrant Missus a little gem saying that she and her abusive wife (i.e. me) have "broken his heart". He used to believe that she deserved so much better than me in a relationship, because I am "so toxic" (yay, new theme song! Boo, Britney Spears!), but now he recognizes that it's her choice and she deserves what she gets. Oh, yeah, and he has deleted my domain from his server. So there. (Actually, what he said was, "I have released that domain into the wild", which is laughably dramatic, but what do you expect?)

So, it's not really my intention to explain or defend my marriage here, but let's examine some facts. First, if in fact I was toxic and abusive, my wife is absolutely free to leave such an untenable circumstance. She certainly makes more money than I do, so she is not financially dependent on me, and she has a proven track record of leaving douchebag losers like her Tapeworm ex. And with my tiny head and big belly and my non-compliant digestive system, I can assure you, I am no siren. Seriously. Yet next July, we celebrate twelve years of marriage, and almost twenty years of being together. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that if The Fragrant Missus was unhappy, she'd have said something by now.

And I don't think we can really be expected to take criticism about our relationship from a chronically single, shallow shitbag who hasn't had a long term relationship in all the years we've known him, and who uses Grinder to hook up with married men for furtive, intermittent couplings and complains constantly that just once he'd "like someone else in the room while he has sex".

But that is all beside the point really. The point is that the Free Speech Fag justifies his own racism and hatred by defending the right of Nazis to march and protest the existence of anyone who isn't straight, white and Christian. The point is that there are limits to what you can get away with, and we reached our limit with him.

And ultimately, this sad, petty little racist had one tiny bit of power to exercise over me, and he did it. It had nothing to do with politics, or differences of opinion. It has to do with power. His intention was to injure. Deleting the website and the email were actually a favour that will save me money, and their loss a very minor inconvenience. The real injury is looking into his mind and seeing so much hate.

Toxic, bitches!

Stampede Douchebaggery

Get comfy. This is a long one, kids, but I can't stay silent any longer.

Well, it’s Stampede time again and both traditional and social media are abuzz with lively debate over the ethics of rodeo.  The Calgary Stampede is a shit show for a number of reasons; although the agricultural exhibits are educational and authentic, the rest of it is, as usual, a forum for douchebags to manifest their douchebaggery. A group of people were caught (and filmed and posted on YouTube!) having sex publicly. Of greater concern, three men were stabbed the other night and one remains in hospital in critical condition.  None of this makes the Stampede any different from any other large event, such as the CNE or Edmonton’s K-Days or what have you. People in large groups gonna be douchebags.

What sets the Stampede apart from these other events is the rodeo. Already this year, two horses have been euthanized due to accidents during the chuckwagon races. Every year, there are equine fatalities resulting from this blood sport, which, I might add, is NOT a traditional cultural activity. Cowboys never raced their chuckwagons—this is a purely modern invention, aimed at bringing tourist dollars onto the Stampede Grounds, and the animals suffer for it.

Invariably, after an accident/fatality on the track, there is enormous outcry from those who are justifiably horrified by the carnage. And invariably, the rodeo supporters respond with their usual bullshit excuses. Let’s look at some of these excuses in detail, shall we?

“We love our animals and would never hurt them intentionally. They’re like members of our own families.”

Oh, bullshit. I don’t doubt for a moment that on some level the “cowboys” care for these horses, but if they truly loved them, they would not expose them to so much potential danger. *That’s* what love is. The chuckwagon competitors care for these animals insomuch as the horses can win them a shit-ton of money; the Rangeland Derby offers a 1.15 million dollar purse to the winner. These boys have their eyes on the prize, and the horses are insured, so their losses (i.e. deaths) are factored into the overall costs of competing. The horses aren’t family members—they are commodities for which the competitors have some fondness. Mostly because the animals are useful and compliant.

“These animals are failed race horses. At least the chuckwagon races give them a few more years of life.”

It is beyond the scope of this blog to go into all the ways in which horse racing is also abusive and deadly, but this comment strikes me as kinda twisted. It is akin to saying, “Well, they couldn’t make it in one dangerous activity about which they never had any choice, so we’re gonna give them the gift of doing something else equally as dangerous. Because life is sacred, isn’t it?”

And it is actually the sacredness of life that is at the core of this debate. Rodeo protesters see animals less as commodities and more as sentient individuals who deserve the same respect and consideration as our human brothers and sisters. Rodeo apologists? Not so much. Again, these animals are commodities. They are “just” cows, “just” steers, “just” horses. Hell, if they weren’t in the rodeo, they’d be on somebody’s plate next to the potatoes. Right?

“Have you ever been behind the scenes at a rodeo? This is not abuse! The animals are cared for by veterinarians and are treated like gold!”

So, let’s look at the fact that none of these creatures have any agency whatsoever in terms of the rodeo. None of these animals choose to participate. This is a wholly human endeavour, and for a pile of cash, I might add. Over two million dollars in prize money is up for grabs in the various rodeo events, some of which include bronc and bull riding and the ever-controversial calf roping. 

And as for the rodeo events not being abusive, what is benign about this? 

Or this?

Or this?

How does one watch this egregious violence and not see it as exactly that?

And sure, I have absolutely no doubt that the livestock is cared for extremely well while they are part of the rodeo circuit—where is the glory in spending eight seconds aboard a tired old nag with open sores and hooves that need trimming? Obviously, it is good showmanship (and a stroke to your sad cowboy ego) to subdue a fiery, powerful beast with rage in his eyes. Yanno, the Romans and American plantation owners took care of their property, too, because their economies depended on it. Yes, their economies were dependent on slavery, which is precisely what these animals are. These animals are nothing better than gladiators, and they suffer injury, trauma and death for the amusement of humans.

“If it wasn’t for rodeo, a lot of these animals would die out.”

This argument is total shite. We don’t bait bulls anymore, but the bulldog didn’t go extinct. What the fuck kind of argument is that? And besides, because the animals are viewed as commodities rather than living creatures deserving of respect, we regularly see horses sold at auction for $25.00 to who knows who? And lets not forget the news reports we read of farm animals in need of rescue from some pasture where they have been allowed to starve or freeze to death. Perhaps fewer animals is exactly what is called for here, if we cannot care for them humanely.

Regardless of the care that is lavished on the livestock all the rest of the year, rodeo is neither humane nor ethical. Defenders of the activity (it is not a sport—a sport is between two consensual parties) point to the low injury rate during the actual events as evidence that rodeo is safe and humane. "An article from the January 15, 2001 Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association noted that a survey found only 15 animals injured in 26,584 performances of 21 PRCA rodeos – a 0.00041 percent rate.[14] A 2000 survey conducted by independent veterinarians at 57 PRCA rodeos found 38 animal injuries in 71,743 animal exposures,[15] and a 1994 survey conducted by on-site independent veterinarians at 28 sanctioned rodeos involving 33,991 animal runs documented the injury rate at .00047 percent, or less than five-hundredths of one percent.[6] A study of rodeo animals in Australia found a similar injury rate. Basic injuries occurred at a rate of 0.072 percent, or one in 1405, with injuries requiring veterinary attention at 0.036 percent, or one injury in every 2810 times the animal was used, and transport, yarding and competition were all included in the study.[7] A later PRCA survey of 60,971 animal performances at 198 rodeo performances and 73 sections of "slack" indicated 27 animals were injured, again approximately five-hundredths of 1 percent — 0.0004.[5]"

That being said, however, the study does not include practice time, where the public is not on hand to observe and where the cowboy is not accountable to anyone but himself for the treatment of the animal, which is easily replaced by another. The ASPCA reports that practice sessions “are often the scene of more severe abuses than competitions”.

It is also worth noting that there are no more recent studies of rodeo animal treatment than the 1994 study. Rodeo is a lucrative business adamantly opposed to transparency, because it is founded on the blood and gore of domesticated animals. The bulls and the broncs are given dramatic names to perpetuate the myth that they are enraged, dangerous creatures. In reality, they are driven to fury with electric prods, flank straps, sharpened sticks, spurs and other tack, all so the spectators can have the thrilling show they paid for.

Finally, here are the words of two American veterinarians who I will permit to have the final say on this subject.  E.J. Finocchio, DVM wrote the Rhode Island legislature urging a ban on calf roping: "As a large animal veterinarian for 20 years...I have witnessed first hand the instant death of calves after their spinal cords were severed from the abrupt stop at the end of a rope when traveling up to 30 mph. I have also witnessed and tended calves who became paralyzed...and whose tracheas were totally or partially severed...Slamming to the ground has caused rupture of several internal organs leading to a slow, agonizing death for some of these calves."

And also, C.J. Haber, a veterinarian with 30 years experience as a USDA meat inspector notes, "The rodeo folk send their animals to the packing house where...I have seen cattle so extensively bruised that the only areas where the skin was attached [to the body] was the head, neck, legs, and belly. I have seen animals with six to eight ribs broken from the spine and at times puncturing the lungs."

Rodeo is not humane, it is not ethical. It is exploitive and cruel and deadly, and if you attend the Calgary Stampede, you are supporting that.

Rodeo is douchebaggery.

Death by douchebaggery

The Rehabilitation of A Princess

A few weeks ago, I was bemoaning the fact that the Princess of Wales was happy to be excluded from the vote because she hates politics and isn't interested in learning about the issues.

Then, about a week later, I took the opportunity at the end of the day to write to my city councillor, advising him that I am absolutely opposed to the building of a new NHL arena in our city using taxpayer money.

I came back to work the next morning, about 16 hours later, to find that my city councillor had already responded to me (and not a form letter, or mass email, either), stating that he shares my views and will be opposing any motion Council introduces to build this arena with public money.

I was rather impressed and was talking about it at break. The one who was most interested? The Princess of Wales. She was so intrigued, in fact, that she asked if she could use my letter as a template for her letter to her own councillor. And then she wrote it that afternoon.

So it just goes to show, people can always surprise you.

I am sad to report, however, that the Princess of Wales has found a new position at another company, and we will be losing her shortly. I will miss her especially, as she has been a great support with regard to the ongoing bizarreness that is Two Clowns (stories to follow).

Democracy Douchebaggery

So, the Canadian government has its panties in a twist about the new law passed in Afghanistan wich makes it illegal for Afghan women to refuse sex to their husbands or to leave the house without their husband's permission. It also grants custodial rights to fathers and grandfathers.

Everyone--politicians and average Canadians alike--are jumping up and down and foaming at the mouth about this barbaric outrage on behalf of Afghan women, and how this violates the sanctity of what our troops are supposed to be doing over there.

What a crock of shit.

Oh, don't get me wrong: the law is horrific and appalling. It pisses me right off.

But let's look at the facts here: the Afghan president, Ahmid Karzai, is facing an election coming up. This law that he has signed off on is part of his strategy to win the votes of conservative members of his nation that will allow him to stay in power. It's about votes, people. It's about democracy, the very democracy that we "civilized" Canadians are supposed to be bringing to that barbaric and backward country. The fact that the law is morally bankrupt and oppressive goes without saying, but to insist that they vote and make legislation as we do makes us equally as oppressive.

And let's not get carried away in our moral righteousness and rectitude: not all of our legislation guarantees the rights of minorities either. Harper's Conservatives have closed down all but two Status of Women offices and removed "equality" from that Ministry's mandate. The Conservative government has been subtly working to re-open the abortion debate again. You know what pisses Harper off about the Afghan rape law? That, as much as he'd like to, he couldn't get it passed here.

Canadians who think that we are in Afghanistn to bring democracy to them are either naive or misguided. Oh, we're fighting the Taliban alright, but not out of any sense of chivalry or altruism: we're there to protect the poppies and the pipeline. Before the events of September 11, we didn't give a rat's ass about the Afghans or their uncivilized ways or how oppressed their women were. We were content to let them live amidst their tribal warfare and let their women trot around the dusty desert in thier burkas, uneducated and ignorant. And if money wasn't involved, we still wouldn't care. Do we give a shit about Darfur? No, you don't see Canadian troops being sent there.

To think that we have any right to invade a nation--because let's remember, we weren't invited into Afghanistan--in order to impose democracy on a people that have no historical or cultural tradition of it is arrogant. It smacks of colonialism. Harper has recently said publically that this war in Afghanistan cannot be won, and he's right for once: no-one has been able to successfully invade and control that region, not the British in the 1800s, not the Russians in the 1980s and not the British, Canadians and Americans of 2009. To say that we are providing security for the very women the Karzai government is oppressing is pure, unadulterated bullshit: the only thing our government gives a shit about is keeping filthy Taliban hands off of the opium and oil revenues.

And now that we've "brought democracy to Afghanistan", we have no right whatsoever to bitch and complain that they're doing it wrong. We have no right to these expectations that 111 Canadian lives has bought us the right to tell these people how to run their country: we cannot simoultaneously give them freedom from their tribal past and insist that they exercise that freedom with our values and priorities.

Is the rape law wrong? Yes. Unequivocally.

But so is our being there to start with.

Political Douchebaggery Part Two

At the end of my last post, I included a link to an article on CBC Online I felt was an excellent summary of what had happened over the past week in Canada's Parliament. The CBC almost always leaves their newstories open to comments from the peanut gallery, and, despite my better instincts, I frequently read them. I really shouldn't, as it only serves to confirm my suspicions that most people are fucking idiots who lack critical analysis and talk before they think. It's the best argment I have for mandatory sterilization.

I kid. Mostly.

Anyway, there is nevertheless the rare occasion when a comment is left which is insightful, fresh and enlightening, and such was the case this morning when I logged on to read what Canada's unwashed masses had to say about Mr. Newman's analysis. A commenter calling himself "Gary Thunder" wrote this:

I heard from a well placed source in the Conservatives (anonymous of course) that the reason they included the measure to end public party financing was because they are in possession of knowledge that the First Nations people are in the process of forming a Federal Party with representation coast to coast and sit with the other Federal parties in the House of Commons. I think with a $1.95 per vote, Mr Harper realises the First Nations could do very well. He deemed it necessary to nip this in the bud.

Perhaps it is irresponsible blogging to comment on this apparently throw- away remark: certainly no-one else seized on it on the CBC forums. But a lot of people are talking about Stephen Harper's error in calling it a "separatist coalition", playing on anglophone Canada's inherent mistrust and resentment of the Bloc Quebecois' separatist agenda. The Liberals and the NDP needed the support of the BQ to introduce the vote of non-confidence, and Harper has been riding that one until the wheels fall off. He even talked about how Gilles Duceppe, the BQ leader, refused to sign the coalition agreement in the presence of the Canadian flag, a statement which was exposed as the bald-faced lie it is by footage of the event, which shows the flag very clearly in the background.

Harper's partisan tactics and divisive statements are well-noted and documented. I personally am not at all surprised by Gary Thunder's assessment, and am sorry that his source is not willing to go public with his/her information. If in fact part of Harper's motivation is to kill the potential for a First Nations Federal party, Canadians need to know, because that is simply racist. I frankly wonder that the First Nations haven't tried to do this before, although perhaps it is only recently that they've been able to get organized enough, or angry enough, to try.

Just as an aside, J. and I were talking recently about Barack Obama being the first black man elected to the White House (I even hate writing that statement: as I've said before, Obama's job would be a lot easier if people started thinking of him as a man and not a "black man"). Anyway, J. was musing that, for all of Canada's apparent liberal-mindedness, we seem a long way from such strides ourselves. Do you think, she posited, that Canada would accept a Prime Minister who was also an aboriginal? And the answer, for the most part I suspect, is sadly, "No fuckin' way, eh?!"

The point I'm making is that Canada is deeply divided and polarized in many directions. The most obvious, and the one getting the most press, is the anglo/franco divide. Many of us still remember with deep dread when Quebec very nearly won the referendum to separate from the rest of Canada. There are also regional divisions, such as east and west, in which certain Albertan douchebags bang on the separatist drum, to to mention the Maritimes, which is possibly the most economically disadvantaged area of the country. Anglos hate Quebec, Quebec hates us back, and everybody hates the First Nations, who are governed by white colonialism that forces them to live on reservations in conditions similar to that of developing nations. Tuberculosis, poverty and violence are epidemic on reservations, where inadequate housing and e.coli in the water are not uncommon.

Stephen Harper, as Prime Minister of this vast nation, strives only to widen the gaps between us. "Divide and conquer" is his motto. He spoke out publicly against gay marriage when he was the Leader of the Opposition and, once in power, only permitted the law to pass because it was politically expedient to do so. Philosophically, he is deeply against it, just as he is against furthering the equality of women, even going so far as to remove the word "equality" from the mandate of the Status of Women Canada, and closing 12 of 16 Status of Women offices.

That he introduced the motion to cut public funding to political parties to financially cripple his opponents is obvious. That he was possibly motivated to do so in order to forestall the formation of a First Nations party is scarcely surprising, given his track record with gays, women and Quebec.

Stephen Harper does not represent me as a Canadian. I distrust his Conservative, exclusive agenda, and I resent his bully-boy tactics. I want him out of office.

My only reservation is that I don't see anyone on the political horizon who is much better.

Political Douchebaggery Afoot

This morning when I got up, I wasn't exactly looking forward to another day of drudgery alongside the Lazy Douchebag (who I learned used to be an exotic dancer!). At the same time, I was just as glad to not be Governor General Michaelle Jean. No matter what she chose to do today, she was gonna piss off millions of people.

But, let me begin by saying that it's nice to finally be discussing Canadian politics for once. I'm not saying that the race for the White House was long, but even the Dalai Lama was overhead to say, "Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick: isn't it over yet?!"

Anyway, most of you already know the scoop. After the recent federal election, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives came back with a stronger minority government. I guess they felt that, having annihilated the Liberals, they could act like they had a majority government and started throwing their weight around. Harper tried to further cripple his political opponents by slashing the funding they would receive, make it illegal for civil workers to strike for a few years (!) and put a cap on amounts sought by women looking for pay equity in their employment. Meanwhile, he did nothing to address the current economic crisis.

Naturally, the other parties balked and formed a coalition. They felt the Conservatives had lost the right to govern and tried to introduce a no confidence vote to topple them.

There was a lot of carrying on, especially on-line. Possibly the most disturbing thing about the shit I was reading is just how uninformed Canadians are about the Parliamentary system. They have no friggin' idea how their government functions. This manouvering by the coalition is flat out power-grabbing, no doubt, but it is legal. It is not "undemocratic" nor "communist" (wtf?).

I frankly don't like Stephen Harper at all. Aside from his draconian politics, I think he has suspicious lips. They're too soft and femmy on a man. In fact, his face is a little too "doughy" for my liking. Maybe he knows it, and that's why he acts like such a raging douchebag asshole. I am utterly delighted that, even if he manages to survive the no confidence vote in January when he tables his budget (because all budget motions are confidence motions), his jimmy bubbles have felt the metallic grip of the vice. It's been great to watch the coaliton give him two in the dink and one in the stink. It couldn't happen to a nicer mysogynist.

I admit I was a little surprised to hear that the Governor General agreed to allow him to prorogue Parliament, but all in all, I think it was a sensible compromise. If the coalition is a strong one, it will survive the Christmas holidays. If not, we've been spared months of stupid bullshit leading up to yet another federal election. Also, the proposed Prime Minister under the coalition government is Stephan Dion, who, just weeks ago following the last election, agreed to step down as leader of the Liberal Party. I am assured by many people who are brighter and more informed and more astute than I that Dion is a smart man and a capable leader, and not nearly the douchebag the press consistently make him out to be.

But we won't have a chance to see that until late January, if it comes to pass.

Either way, it seems we live in interesting times. For an excellent analysis of this latest douchebaggery, see this article from CBC online.