meatjournal

So, everyone is using Twitter (which is, apparently, too cool for the "www" part of an address), as well as Facebook? Really? I suppose I could make a snide comment about blogs and journals being too wordy for folks, but it's hard to believe that blogs could be seen to have too much in the way of depth. The saddest part of all is that necessity is going to force me to use the Big Book of Human Faces again, before long; the pressure has been steadily building for months, now!

Also, I'm in severe back/shoulder pain and trying to figure out ways I can waste time in front of the computer. Further bulletins as events warrant!

So I will add this:

Dr. House: "A disease that attacks the brain, heart, and testicles? I think Byron wrote about that."

... this is kind of what it's like whenever my friends and I play roleplaying games?

In what can only be deemed a tremendous shock, it turns out that Canadians barely understand their own political system. I feel the need to quote Accidental Deliberations, where it was written: "But isn't the bigger story the fact that the actual federal government has been trying desperately to convince Canadians at large to believe the wrong answers to the last two questions?"

Canada could use some quality political blogs. I think I've been spoiled by the sheer number of insightful, story-breaking blogs throughout the United States by politically-active Americans. In any event, most progressive blogs--if I can use that term--are now trash-talking Michael Ignatieff before the man even steps up to the plate. Yes, he was rushed into office; yes, he's said a few things in the past that were taken to indicate that he's a hawk who is soft on torture; yes, he's one of them there snooty-intellectuals (God forbid we have one of those); yes, he looks absolutely evil. Can we move on, now?

Say what you will about conservatives, but they'll rally around their candidate--publicly, at least--and fight to the death in order to defend that candidate's good name. As Rick Mercer and others have said and written, Stephen Harper has a foul nature and he's simply wrong on democracy. And yet, the Conservative party will spare no expense in order to ruthlessly run progressive candidates into the ground.

Worse yet, they receive a lot of help from apologetic, self-conscious Liberals who rejected Stéphane Dion from day one because the man had a thick, French accent and his grasp of the English language was far from fluent. He was a man small in stature, who looked more cuddly than ferocious. So, left-wing blogs cried out: 'Dion has got to go!' The man, in spite of his experience, intelligence, and reassuringly progressive values, never had a chance.

Now we have Ignatieff, arguably the best out of a poor selection of candidates, and the Liberals are already drawing attention to his weaknesses, doing the Conservative party's research for them. Ignatieff may be a lot of things, but he's not dumb or naive, and he'll probably be better at managing the party than Dion ultimately was (the culmination of which being the CBC tape fiasco). Here we have a man who will want to beat Harper, and who may even have what it takes, but Liberal supporters will be too meek to stand up and defend him. Instead, they'll be left squeaking online about Ignatieff's imperfections, coming up with excuses for losing the next election race pre-emptively. Way to go, guys.

So, someone took a piece of footage from the classic film Koyanisqaatsi and added Gary Jules' version of the Tears for Fears song "Mad World" overtop. For instant ennui, just start the video!

So, yes. Canada is in the midst of a terrible crisis: Stephen Harper may be forced to step down as Prime Minister!

Even when personal feelings about the possibility of my country being run by a coalition government for upwards of sixteen months are put to one side, I'm nonetheless infuriated by the vicious, acidic rhetoric flowing freely from the Conservative Party and many of its supporters. I am deeply bothered by the notion that any party working with the Bloc Québécois is branded as traitorous; I am frustrated that the Bloc is glibly dismissed as "the separatists" by the Conservatives, regardless of context. I will never be a big fan of the Bloc, which goes without saying, but to contemptuously, publicly treat democratically-elected MPs as enemies of the country -- not for any specific reason, but in principle?

Moreover, I can't believe that the Conservative Party is allowed to repeatedly dub all liberal competition "socialists," a tactic shamelessly plied out of the cold, dead hands of the McCain-Palin ticket in the United States. If the internet functions as any sort of indicator of general public hostility, then the venom being spat forth by conservatives terrifies me; suddenly, those who support a coalition government are traitors, backing a French man (remember, he has duel citizenship!) making 'deals with the Devil' ("the separatists," who want to destroy those foundations we cherish so) in order to seize power "undemocratically." I've seen too many comments suggesting that all those involved with the coalition should be charged with treason to count.

In short, I accuse Mr. Stephen Harper and his cabinet of intentionally exploiting deep, hurtful rifts amongst Canadians for personal gain. I simply wish that more journalists would have the integrity to expose to what degree Harper is willing to sew new rifts amongst Canadians, using bitterness like a weapon. I'm so tired of the Rovian bullshit -- bullshit that costs a lot of money in endless, mud-slinging political advertisements.

Oh, and yes, Stockwell Day is a pathetically-transparent liar. Just throwing that out there.

We have footage of an asteroid striking the planet.

In Alberta. (Clearly, it was sent from God to smite Stephen Harper.)

I briefly wanted to highlight Noah Richer's excellent piece about the myth of multiculturalism in Canada, published today in the National Post. I am often troubled by this cultural narrative that Canada is a 'tossed salad' to America's 'melting pot.' I don't see this alleged country of peace-loving, gentle people of various cultural and ethnic backgrounds. I do see the same, divisive character flaws--the bravado (as evidenced by our newfound military-industrial complex) and posturing, the xenophobia and outright bigotry, the ignorance and general hostility--that we often glibly mock the US for being riddled with.

As always, Canada is left boasting about something but where we have words, the US has an example. Where they have a stunningly-eloquent, intelligent and educated African-American President, we have the penultimate pasty businessman, humourless and exploitative of the same divisions I noted above. The United States is currently swept up in this fervor of belief in social progress while our Prime Minister shows an open contempt for, literally, every form of art in Canada. I hope, at some point, Canadians pause and take a look at the contrast between our nations' leaders, and come to some embarrassing conclusions.

As Richer puts it, confronting another ugly truth: "If Canada is to experience its own extraordinary, galvanizing political progression, it will not be because it has elected a black to high office. That would be pleasing enough, not least because slavery was also practised here, though it would be misrepresenting history to pretend that the issue is as profoundly troubling here as in the United States. But no, our own Obama moment will occur when Canada upholds a candidate from the First Nations as prime minister. Then we shall have confronted our own national shame. Then we shall have surmounted our own historical disgrace."

You get one more fucking chance.

Don't blow it.

I don't actually plan to 'live blog.' Sorry, interfans!

Someone in Boston: "I got to the polling place (branch library) at 6:50. At 7 the lady came out and said "polls open" and people erupted in cheers. Weirdest election I ever voted in."

We're witnessing something, ladies and germs.

And I am glad that Bill Maher forced one of his (Republican supporting) guests to admit this particular nugget of truth:

Bill Maher: "So, why do you think these right-wingers suddenly love the Jews so much?"
Amy Holmes: "Well, I mean, you would know, and--"
Maher: "I do know, but I wanna know why you..."
Holmes: "A lot of conservative Christians are huge supporters of Israel--"
Maher: "Huge supporters. I agree. Why?"
Holmes: "Because they believe that's where the End of Days will happen, and they want to protect Israel."
Maher: "Right. Thank you."
Holmes: "They want to protect Israel from destruction, and we know this, so it's not--"
Maher: "Whoah, whoah, whoah. But what happens to the Jews at the End of Days?"
Holmes: "Well, Christians have a, uh, a certain storyline there..."
Maher: "What happens to the Jews at the End of Days?"
Holmes: "[laughs] They don't go to the same place..."
Maher: "Yeah, they love Israel because they need the Jews to be in place when you-know-who comes back and kills them all. [pantomimes a stage director] Places! Places! Where are my Jews? Places! Places! Where are my dead and dying Jews? I mean, it's a very cynical kind of love they have for Israel."
Holmes: "I-- I-- I wouldn't agree with that."
Maher: "Really?"
Holmes: "Yes. I think it's a genuine love, and it's a genuine love of the people of the--"

And then she was cut off by the audience jeering.

To be fair, I do believe Jesus is going to offer the Jews one last chance to renounce their beliefs before they face the coming shitstorm.

The Lord works in mysterious, contemptible ways?

It is what it is!





Stolen from an unshaven fellow.

Firstly, if Barack Obama isn't elected, Sarah Silverman is "going to blame the Jews." (Thanks, Allover!)

Secondly, this is a terrifying look intothe life of a reckless asshole - who now happens to be running for President.

Follow the links for very informative and troubling information! Well, except for the bit about voting Jews. They're okay.

This looks intruiging:

So, Oliver--that fellow from inter net with the show he does--passed this link along to me. It's amusing, but also correct!

Initially, I was going to attempt to compile one of my lengthly diatribe-posts, replete with links aplenty. After all, it's every other day that I'm reading something about Harper's government that makes me cringe. It was my father who pointed out that he hasn't seen a politician as transparently self-interested and ambitious since Mulroney. Harper's a businessman, and an infantile one at that.

While I would love to agree with "Anyone but Harper," it really boils down to "No one but Dion." Beneath Layton's fuzzy-wuzzy exterior lies the beating heart of a not-too-shrewd political opportunist. Elizabeth May? It's tough to say how she'd run her campaign and her party were she a serious contender to the throne, because as it is she runs her campaign like it isn't. Who's left? Gilles Duceppe? Hey, he's a smart and clever man who is always my favourite in the debates. But that's not saying much.

Mind you, all of this is semi-pointless anyhow, because we don't get to choose the Prime Minister - we only choose who is elected in our respective constituencies.

Trust me - this is worth a look: From "Bill Moyers' Journal," a report on the state of nationally-syndicated American radio, and specifically, its conservative "shock jocks." The comparison raised between the hate speech offered by these men (who are quick to dub liberals, homosexuals, foreigners, etcetera, as cockroaches, traitors, unhuman, haters of Christianity and America in general, ad nauseam) and the radio programs aired up to and throughout the Rwanda genocide comes across, sadly enough, as horrifyingly apt as opposed to, say, melodramatic):

So, Sarah Palin doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is. This is simply the latest gaffe in a rapidly-growing bundle of controversies, and yet, the McCain camp doesn't seem to have to worry too much about the oft-dubbed 'hockey mom' being ignorant or otherwise underprepared, because Americans love Palin!

Senator Joe Biden was refreshingly honest when he noted that perhaps Hillary Clinton would have ultimately been a better choice for Vice President, and also correct. Firstly, choosing Hillary Clinton would certainly help to unite the Democratic Party, hopefully putting an end to the sour grapes some short-sighted voters are suffering from. Secondly, Palin and Clinton? No contest. At the very least, I hope that the Democratic Party's top brass are begging Hillary Clinton to help in neutralizing the Palin threat entirely, since any man who debates her will probably be vilified by the Republican Party.

When asked about why he refuses to "debate dogma" by a few upset atheists, angry videoblogger Pat Condell (whom I certainly do not endorse the views of, considering how I disagree with him as often as I passionately agree with him) said this:

"If God existed, and if I had any reason to ask Him for anything, I think I'd probably ask Him to save me from the curse of polite and deferential atheists. Religion is out of control right now, precisely because too many people have been too diplomatic for too long. If we'd had the balls to do some straight-talking years ago when we should have and put this insulting nonsense in its rightful place with astrology and palmistry, we wouldn't even be talking about this now. We'd be doing something more useful with our time. What a waste of an Enlightenment. So, my position is pretty clear: Believe whatever you want, but if you want me to believe it, then provide evidence or expect mockery and ridicule. Do not expect polite debate. I'm not trying to convert anyone to anything. I don't give a damn what anyone believes, as long as I don't have to keep hearing about it. And by the way, that would include condescending atheists, just for future reference."

Now there's a philosophy I can get behind. But perhaps I'm also simply tired of feeling awkward and uncomfortable because I'm making an effort to be 'polite' (which is to say, I'm pursing my lips instead of responding bitterly to questions like, "Why are you still an atheist? How can you believe there's no God? Why do you refuse to come to church with us?"), even though what I believe is being poked and prodded and derided because it hasn't solidified itself as a protected, hypersensitive (yet disproportionately influential) social institution.

Such was the case this very weekend.