A funny thing happened this weekend: While cruising Vancouver's Craigslist I came across this week's pathetic American post. By that I mean the usual "I hate the US sooo much I'm coming to Canada" crap. Frankly, I despise these little whiners immensely and, being the jerk that I am, I fired off an e-mail detailing exactly how I felt about little pansy leftists, a human rights activist and a musician no less, too cowardly to fight for what they believe in their own country.
What's with all you whiny liberal Americans? Are you
too wimpy to work for what you believe in the most free country in
the world? No, a liberal human rights activist and a musician
aren't needed here, and frankly you couldn't afford the rent on
your Starbucks salary.
I figured that would be it.
It wasn't. Instead I got this reply (edited for length, this guy is longwinded):
Neither of us is too wimpy to work for what we believe in. But we both believe in perspective. It's hard to understand the big picture if you only expose yourself to the small one. It's like this: if you read a book, but you don't understand some of the concepts, you might turn to another book on the same subject, whereupon the first book makes a lot more sense. Or, if a committee . . .
(I told you this guy has a bad case of literary diarrhea) . . .
Maybe, just maybe we don't want to live in a fast-paced, money-solves-everything, buy-more-so-you're-happy, exploit-all, bigger-better-faster-now culture.
And frankly, I don't work at Starbucks, I'm a freelance professional
web designer with years of experience. She's a college grad and a
goddamned genius and can do whatever she puts her mind to.
Ok. This guy is a freelance webdesigner and she's a college grad. How special. More to the point, how does this bozo think he's going to get into Canada? On the point system these two don't come close to the 67 score needed to immigrate, and I doubt musicians are covered under NAFTA. Is he just going to show up and hope no one notices?
To be fair, lets look at his web design skills (and his rather large ego!). Uh huh. Use Front Page much? The third person bit is rich. And do people really compare you to " . . .Classic bands like Led Zeppelin, U2, REM, The Beatles, Genesis, and Pink Floyd"?
Is this guy for real?
Monday, January 01, 2007
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Are you a Pacifist?
Are you? Do you wear a white poppy for Peace? Do you consider yourself a follower of Ghandi? Do you follow Ghandi’s teaching? Would you do as he said the British should do:
"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions.... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."(from Wikipedia)
Is that advice you would follow? If someone wanted your house, would you simply vacate and move on? If I punch you in the nose, will you punch me back? What if someone threatens to rape or kill your wife or girlfriend, husband or boyfriend? Will you stand by? For your son or daughter, too?
Will you call the police? If you do, you must realize you are asking another to do violence on your behalf. Is that really pacifism? Isn’t that just cowardice?
At least Ghandi was a compassionate fellow in that he allowed that not all peope were as perfectly non-violent as he. He felt that non-violence born of cowardice was useless:
"I do believe,' he wrote, 'that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence."
Here’s what I think. I believe most of the pacifist horde, the holier than holy group handing out the white poppies, are nothing but cowards, and selfish cowards at that. They don’t want war, they don’t want violence, but they demand the protection of the police and the courts. They want violence done on their behalf, and at their direction only, and only for their own benefit. They cannot, or will not, see the value in doing violence unless it is directly related to them. The needs of an Afghan school-girl, or an Israeli kibbutzer are just too remote. It’s so much easier, intellectually and physically, to just parrot that all war is bad. They don’t need to think of the consequences of those thoughts because there will always be others, more intelligent and practical, who will be willing to do violence to protect them and their selfishness.
"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell
Pacifism in the richest nations of the world, in the face of gross violence and killings of innocents in foreign nations, behind the protection of others willing to do violence, is nothing but cowardice. That’s what you are if you are a pacifist in Canada.
Are you? Do you wear a white poppy for Peace? Do you consider yourself a follower of Ghandi? Do you follow Ghandi’s teaching? Would you do as he said the British should do:
"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions.... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."(from Wikipedia)
Is that advice you would follow? If someone wanted your house, would you simply vacate and move on? If I punch you in the nose, will you punch me back? What if someone threatens to rape or kill your wife or girlfriend, husband or boyfriend? Will you stand by? For your son or daughter, too?
Will you call the police? If you do, you must realize you are asking another to do violence on your behalf. Is that really pacifism? Isn’t that just cowardice?
At least Ghandi was a compassionate fellow in that he allowed that not all peope were as perfectly non-violent as he. He felt that non-violence born of cowardice was useless:
"I do believe,' he wrote, 'that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence."
Here’s what I think. I believe most of the pacifist horde, the holier than holy group handing out the white poppies, are nothing but cowards, and selfish cowards at that. They don’t want war, they don’t want violence, but they demand the protection of the police and the courts. They want violence done on their behalf, and at their direction only, and only for their own benefit. They cannot, or will not, see the value in doing violence unless it is directly related to them. The needs of an Afghan school-girl, or an Israeli kibbutzer are just too remote. It’s so much easier, intellectually and physically, to just parrot that all war is bad. They don’t need to think of the consequences of those thoughts because there will always be others, more intelligent and practical, who will be willing to do violence to protect them and their selfishness.
"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell
Pacifism in the richest nations of the world, in the face of gross violence and killings of innocents in foreign nations, behind the protection of others willing to do violence, is nothing but cowardice. That’s what you are if you are a pacifist in Canada.
Friday, November 10, 2006
In Defense of our Defenders
Today, the day before Remembrance Day, I read a truly pathetic post by a truly pathetic Liberal. In it, our virtuous defender of free speech lashes the veterans who did something (he apparently considers it "bullshit") to ensure it. What do the poor veterans want? Apparently the guys who fought, and whose friends died, are exercising their legal right to defend the image and trademark of their remembrance. The post at that toilet-blog is a pathetic defence of a group whose goal is to diminish the memory of our vets. Peace at all cost isn't peace, and stealing from veterans to make that naive and rather ungrateful point is almost the lowest of the low. Defending it is one of the few things lower. But what do you expect from a self-confessed criminal?
Stealing trademarks, denigrating soldiers, committing white collar crime, stealing millions from taxpayers? To quote our dirty little friend "YAWN". How typically Liberal.
Today, the day before Remembrance Day, I read a truly pathetic post by a truly pathetic Liberal. In it, our virtuous defender of free speech lashes the veterans who did something (he apparently considers it "bullshit") to ensure it. What do the poor veterans want? Apparently the guys who fought, and whose friends died, are exercising their legal right to defend the image and trademark of their remembrance. The post at that toilet-blog is a pathetic defence of a group whose goal is to diminish the memory of our vets. Peace at all cost isn't peace, and stealing from veterans to make that naive and rather ungrateful point is almost the lowest of the low. Defending it is one of the few things lower. But what do you expect from a self-confessed criminal?
Stealing trademarks, denigrating soldiers, committing white collar crime, stealing millions from taxpayers? To quote our dirty little friend "YAWN". How typically Liberal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)