Seriously. Think about it.
All Indy had to do was let that Belloq dude take the medallion. He would have found the ark, opened it, and killed himself and all the Nazis.
Then the good guys swoop in with the greatest of ease and make off with the conveniently self-sealed ark and toss it in that warehouse.
Instead, we have to kill a bunch of Nepalese, burn down a bar, kill a whole lot of Egyptians, drag Indy under a car, annoy a bunch of African boat guys, etc. etc.
And then what? Bad guy opens ark and everyone who looks at it dies.
Waste. Of. Time.
Maybe the guys who do the "How it should have ended" videos can do that next.
Friday, October 08, 2010
Cannon fodder
Quite an uproar over the "cannon fodder" video.
It involves a fictional mother of a Canadian soldier lamenting that she might not have had children if she had known that they would be used as cannon fodder.
Lots of anger over that, including one nonfictional mother of a slain soldier who said, “Because they died in combat, [these women] have the nerve to describe them as cannon fodder.”
Nerve?
Yes, I suppose it takes nerve to break the veneer of patriotism that tells people that their children died a great and wonderful cause when in reality they're dying for no particularly good reason.
But if it's true that the war is pointless and wrong, and no one says anything, more children are going to die.
Seriously. If you want to convince the rest of us that you're right. If you want to convince us that the war in Afghanistan is worthwhile and winnable, then show us how you're going to win. Show us how you're already winning. Show us what you could possible hope to accomplish.
I see a lot of nothing. I see the schools we built being used for storing and shipping marijuana. I see our money ending up in villas in Dubai. I see the government we set up mistreating its women as badly as their enemies did.
That's not worth dying for.
It involves a fictional mother of a Canadian soldier lamenting that she might not have had children if she had known that they would be used as cannon fodder.
Lots of anger over that, including one nonfictional mother of a slain soldier who said, “Because they died in combat, [these women] have the nerve to describe them as cannon fodder.”
Nerve?
Yes, I suppose it takes nerve to break the veneer of patriotism that tells people that their children died a great and wonderful cause when in reality they're dying for no particularly good reason.
But if it's true that the war is pointless and wrong, and no one says anything, more children are going to die.
Seriously. If you want to convince the rest of us that you're right. If you want to convince us that the war in Afghanistan is worthwhile and winnable, then show us how you're going to win. Show us how you're already winning. Show us what you could possible hope to accomplish.
I see a lot of nothing. I see the schools we built being used for storing and shipping marijuana. I see our money ending up in villas in Dubai. I see the government we set up mistreating its women as badly as their enemies did.
That's not worth dying for.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Canada will be a "pimp"
Canada will be taking the role of a pimp, according to one MP. That's because the courts have struck down anti-prostitution laws that, while not preventing prostitution, made it very dangerous.
Conservative MP Joy Smith:
Definition: pimp
I don't think the government would be responsible for soliciting customers for prostitutes, although they might do a good job with putting up signs. That seems to be their thing, lately.
The government would be responsible, however, for doing the same things that they are currently (supposed to be) doing for other workers: protecting their rights; keeping them safe from criminals; taxing them.
On the other hand, I can't expect much better than hyperbole from Conservatives. Their chief arguments in court seem to revolve around witnesses who pulled stuff out of their asses and the belief that prostitution was inherently "degrading and unhealthy".
It's a lot like being gay, I guess. I mean look at all those gay kids who get beat up and/or commit suicide. Must be an unhealthy lifestyle.
Well, Conservative super-right-wing christian freaks. You've had 2000 years to try to stamp out prostitution and all you've done is make women miserable. Maybe we'll try something different for a little while and see how it works out.
Conservative MP Joy Smith:
“My goodness we would have the nation as the pimp and that’s wrong and we can’t afford that,”
Definition: pimp
a person, esp. a man, who solicits customers for a prostitute or a brothel, usually in return for a share of the earnings; pander; procurer.
I don't think the government would be responsible for soliciting customers for prostitutes, although they might do a good job with putting up signs. That seems to be their thing, lately.
The government would be responsible, however, for doing the same things that they are currently (supposed to be) doing for other workers: protecting their rights; keeping them safe from criminals; taxing them.
On the other hand, I can't expect much better than hyperbole from Conservatives. Their chief arguments in court seem to revolve around witnesses who pulled stuff out of their asses and the belief that prostitution was inherently "degrading and unhealthy".
It's a lot like being gay, I guess. I mean look at all those gay kids who get beat up and/or commit suicide. Must be an unhealthy lifestyle.
Well, Conservative super-right-wing christian freaks. You've had 2000 years to try to stamp out prostitution and all you've done is make women miserable. Maybe we'll try something different for a little while and see how it works out.
Sunday, August 08, 2010
Transport Canada = Medieval Theologians
Canada has an addiction to rule making. Thus spake Joseph Brean, National Post libertarian dude.
That's right. Our penchant for making rules to prevent future disasters based on statistics about past disasters? That's basically the nanny state.
Aren't we crazy.
I can't imagine what Brean would have to say about Transport Canada. Bunch of stuck up, pretentious nerds pouring over every airline crash to determine the cause and try to prevent future crashes.
Assholes, those guys.
So the right idea is what? Shrug our shoulder and say, "shit happens"? Brilliant.
Right. We're the religious ones for trying to find rational causes for everything.
And you, Mr. Brean, are the rational one for just saying, "shit happens" and hoping it doesn't happen again.
To be perfectly honest, his opinion sounds the most medieval: hey man, sometimes god just does you in. It's not your place to ask why.
That's right. Our penchant for making rules to prevent future disasters based on statistics about past disasters? That's basically the nanny state.
Aren't we crazy.
I can't imagine what Brean would have to say about Transport Canada. Bunch of stuck up, pretentious nerds pouring over every airline crash to determine the cause and try to prevent future crashes.
Assholes, those guys.
"We cannot just accept that this was a death. We've got to give that death meaning, and the way to give it meaning is to pass a law."
So the right idea is what? Shrug our shoulder and say, "shit happens"? Brilliant.
He called it a throwback to medieval times, a belief that nothing happens without somebody causing it, that every natural phenomenon has a moral aspect. Modern safety regulations, like witchcraft or divine retribution, are based on a faulty premise about who is responsible for stuff happening, and what can be done about it. Like religion, they are an effort to bring meaning to a cruel and random universe.
Right. We're the religious ones for trying to find rational causes for everything.
And you, Mr. Brean, are the rational one for just saying, "shit happens" and hoping it doesn't happen again.
To be perfectly honest, his opinion sounds the most medieval: hey man, sometimes god just does you in. It's not your place to ask why.
Friday, August 06, 2010
Catholics Oppose Gay Marriage
Big news there, I suppose.
They have a website though, now.
Their points, in order.
My tendency here is to simply add the suffix [citation needed] to the text. The foundation of our society, last I checked, was freedom. Freedom of the speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly ... that sort of thing. The Taliban have marriage. The Vikings had marriage. Soviet Russia had marriage. Marriage - whether forced, voluntary or some combination thereof - has been around for a long time and I don't know of any correlation between its prevalence and level of civilization a society has.
We're just going to ignore that "pseudo-marriage" phrase, as you're assuming your conclusion here. (i.e. see above, [citation needed]). Gravely sinful acts? I direct you to read your bible for all of the other "gravely sinful" acts. Like eating lobster, crab, oysters or clams. Or weaving two kinds of fabric together. Or sewing two different crops in the same field. Or accidentally seeing your father naked or your wife while she's menstruating.
Also, I think you're using the word "assimilation" incorrectly. Good try, though. Big words can sometimes be impressive.
True that. You're 1 for 3, quite respectable in major league baseball. The law should serve as a guideline for ethics by, for example, demonstrating that everyone has equal rights and that one group of people can't force their morality on another unwilling group.
That's a lot of claiming you're doing there.
Yes, it would normalize homosexual behaviour. Why is that bad? What we've seen, with celibate priests for instance, is that making sex forbidden can cause some pretty harsh overreactions and perversions. I'd rather have gay people feel normal, not just for those reasons, but because there's really no reason for people who engage in consensual sex to feel bad about it.
Also, I'm living in Canada. We've had Evil, Gay Sex Marriages for years now and there's no evidence that it's destroyed or harmed Holy, Opposite Sex Marriages. Perhaps you could provide evidence.
And yes, the adopted kids of gay people turn out just fine.
Did you read the link above? The study is pretty clear: "...the vast majority of studies show that children living with two mothers and children living with a mother and father have the same levels and qualities of social competence."
You'll have to explain how the Evil, Gay Scourge is destructive.
Therefore, nothing. None of your points above were accurate depictions of reality. Therefore, your conclusion is unsupported.
Meanwhile, take off that shirt. I believe you're wearing a shirt made of two types of fabric woven together and - while your god is explicitly in favour of bigotry and brutal punishments in that vein - he really doesn't like clothing made of two fabrics woven together.
They have a website though, now.
Their points, in order.
Natural marriage is the foundation of a civilised society.
My tendency here is to simply add the suffix [citation needed] to the text. The foundation of our society, last I checked, was freedom. Freedom of the speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly ... that sort of thing. The Taliban have marriage. The Vikings had marriage. Soviet Russia had marriage. Marriage - whether forced, voluntary or some combination thereof - has been around for a long time and I don't know of any correlation between its prevalence and level of civilization a society has.
Same-sex unions, as pseudo-marriages, involve gravely sinful acts that are never defensible, and the very assimilation to marriage damages marriage itself.
We're just going to ignore that "pseudo-marriage" phrase, as you're assuming your conclusion here. (i.e. see above, [citation needed]). Gravely sinful acts? I direct you to read your bible for all of the other "gravely sinful" acts. Like eating lobster, crab, oysters or clams. Or weaving two kinds of fabric together. Or sewing two different crops in the same field. Or accidentally seeing your father naked or your wife while she's menstruating.
Also, I think you're using the word "assimilation" incorrectly. Good try, though. Big words can sometimes be impressive.
The law is a great teacher, and it encourages or discourages behaviour.
True that. You're 1 for 3, quite respectable in major league baseball. The law should serve as a guideline for ethics by, for example, demonstrating that everyone has equal rights and that one group of people can't force their morality on another unwilling group.
Government-backed same sex civil unions would encourage and normalise homosexual behaviour, and it would harm natural marriage, children, adults, and homosexuals themselves.
That's a lot of claiming you're doing there.
Yes, it would normalize homosexual behaviour. Why is that bad? What we've seen, with celibate priests for instance, is that making sex forbidden can cause some pretty harsh overreactions and perversions. I'd rather have gay people feel normal, not just for those reasons, but because there's really no reason for people who engage in consensual sex to feel bad about it.
Also, I'm living in Canada. We've had Evil, Gay Sex Marriages for years now and there's no evidence that it's destroyed or harmed Holy, Opposite Sex Marriages. Perhaps you could provide evidence.
And yes, the adopted kids of gay people turn out just fine.
The law should promote behaviours that are beneficial and prohibit (or at least not endorse) those that are destructive.
Did you read the link above? The study is pretty clear: "...the vast majority of studies show that children living with two mothers and children living with a mother and father have the same levels and qualities of social competence."
You'll have to explain how the Evil, Gay Scourge is destructive.
Therefore, the law should promote natural marriage, and it should provide no option for government-backed same-sex marriage or civil unions.
Therefore, nothing. None of your points above were accurate depictions of reality. Therefore, your conclusion is unsupported.
Meanwhile, take off that shirt. I believe you're wearing a shirt made of two types of fabric woven together and - while your god is explicitly in favour of bigotry and brutal punishments in that vein - he really doesn't like clothing made of two fabrics woven together.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Liberals Flunk Economics
Or so Zogby would have you believe.
They did a poll where they made statements about "basic economic" issues and saw that the left-leaning people got the answers wrong.
Now, you're probably expecting these basic statements to be something very clear and non-controversial. Something like "Inflation is the gradual increase in the price of goods" and such.
No such luck. Let's go over the statements and correct answers.
"Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable"
According to the WSJ, smart people would agree. Dumb people, on the left, disagree.
I guess that depends on the restrictions. Restrictions requiring developers to make a certain portion of their buildings as accessible to low-income earners would make housing more affordable, wouldn't it?
Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (unenlightened answer: disagree)
Unenlightened? Whatever. Yes, services are more expensive because we license engineers and plumbers and what not. You could also have unlicensed people work in your house and end up having to pay for most of your jobs to be done twice. Then add in the cost of the damages to your house done by the first guy. Depends on what you count.
Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree).
This depends very much on exactly where your numbers come from and which segment of society you mean. Are we talking wage disparity? Access to health care? Longevity? The inflation accounted income for the lowest quintile of Americans has dropped since a peak in the early 1970s. Rich people are doing fine, though.
3) Rent control leads to housing shortages (unenlightened answer: disagree).
Again, it depends on the "rent control" in question. Done properly, it's merely a way of keeping your landlord from holding you hostage in your own home, gouging against the expense of moving. Done improperly, it can cause shortages because no one wants to rent out houses anymore.
4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (unenlightened answer: agree).
If this was the statement, not paraphrased, then I agree that the answer is no. A company has to have all, or nearly all, of the market share to be a monopoly.
Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree).
The "unenlightened" would agree? Who are the fucking idiots who don't think third world workers are being exploited? Are the union leaders being assassinated in Colombia not enough of a hint? Or the sports shoe sweatshops? What world is Zogby living in that doesn't have exploited third world workers?
Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree).
Actually, yes it does. When NAFTA came to my home town, it shut down two steel plants, a Union Carbide and a bunch of other plants. Those people became unemployed. Even in the Libertarian Faery Dust version of things, free trade causes unemployment, but the Faery Dust comes and retrains the 50-year-old steel worker as an IT consultant.
Yes. Free Trade also causes employment - in Mexico and other such places. But don't pretend it doesn't cause unemployment, at the very least in the immediate sense.
That kind of pretense is simply unenlightened.
Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (unenlightened answer: disagree).
Minimum wage causes unemployment, does it? I'd like to see them prove it. What it does, in my considered opinion, is distribute income away from multi-billion dollar corporations toward their employees. This creates local expenditures (local goods) rather than remote ones (yacht, villas and the like).
After going through this list, I'm going to have to argue that the guys at Zogby are a bunch of right-wing, wealthy, ideologically-locked jackasses too full of their own pomposity and arrogance to evaluate anyone else. Their conclusion is that, basically, anyone who disagrees with their biases (the same biases that have led the United States in to its current financial disaster) must be stupid.
Best of luck, assholes.
They did a poll where they made statements about "basic economic" issues and saw that the left-leaning people got the answers wrong.
Now, you're probably expecting these basic statements to be something very clear and non-controversial. Something like "Inflation is the gradual increase in the price of goods" and such.
No such luck. Let's go over the statements and correct answers.
"Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable"
According to the WSJ, smart people would agree. Dumb people, on the left, disagree.
I guess that depends on the restrictions. Restrictions requiring developers to make a certain portion of their buildings as accessible to low-income earners would make housing more affordable, wouldn't it?
Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (unenlightened answer: disagree)
Unenlightened? Whatever. Yes, services are more expensive because we license engineers and plumbers and what not. You could also have unlicensed people work in your house and end up having to pay for most of your jobs to be done twice. Then add in the cost of the damages to your house done by the first guy. Depends on what you count.
Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree).
This depends very much on exactly where your numbers come from and which segment of society you mean. Are we talking wage disparity? Access to health care? Longevity? The inflation accounted income for the lowest quintile of Americans has dropped since a peak in the early 1970s. Rich people are doing fine, though.
3) Rent control leads to housing shortages (unenlightened answer: disagree).
Again, it depends on the "rent control" in question. Done properly, it's merely a way of keeping your landlord from holding you hostage in your own home, gouging against the expense of moving. Done improperly, it can cause shortages because no one wants to rent out houses anymore.
4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (unenlightened answer: agree).
If this was the statement, not paraphrased, then I agree that the answer is no. A company has to have all, or nearly all, of the market share to be a monopoly.
Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree).
The "unenlightened" would agree? Who are the fucking idiots who don't think third world workers are being exploited? Are the union leaders being assassinated in Colombia not enough of a hint? Or the sports shoe sweatshops? What world is Zogby living in that doesn't have exploited third world workers?
Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree).
Actually, yes it does. When NAFTA came to my home town, it shut down two steel plants, a Union Carbide and a bunch of other plants. Those people became unemployed. Even in the Libertarian Faery Dust version of things, free trade causes unemployment, but the Faery Dust comes and retrains the 50-year-old steel worker as an IT consultant.
Yes. Free Trade also causes employment - in Mexico and other such places. But don't pretend it doesn't cause unemployment, at the very least in the immediate sense.
That kind of pretense is simply unenlightened.
Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (unenlightened answer: disagree).
Minimum wage causes unemployment, does it? I'd like to see them prove it. What it does, in my considered opinion, is distribute income away from multi-billion dollar corporations toward their employees. This creates local expenditures (local goods) rather than remote ones (yacht, villas and the like).
After going through this list, I'm going to have to argue that the guys at Zogby are a bunch of right-wing, wealthy, ideologically-locked jackasses too full of their own pomposity and arrogance to evaluate anyone else. Their conclusion is that, basically, anyone who disagrees with their biases (the same biases that have led the United States in to its current financial disaster) must be stupid.
Best of luck, assholes.
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Mike Harris's Honorary Hypocrisy
Nippissing University, presumably out of some masochism or ignorance, has decided that Mike Harris is deserving of an honorary degree.
Mike Harris.
Remember him? I do. He's the guy who wanted to "create a crisis in the education system." Why? To improve it? No, that was the lie his government told on the outside. The real reason, as has been recorded, was to "get government out of the education business."
That's why I assume the people at Nippissing are a bunch of masochists. Why would a public institution grant a degree to a man who wanted to destroy education.
The teachers are upset. In fact, they're so upset that they're considering the idea of refusing to give seats to student teachers from Nippissing.
The loyal Harris followers - specifically the people who hate public education and would prefer that the poor suffer in ignorance - will be quick to jump on this as if it were the teachers' fault. They'll tell us that the teachers are "using students" in their fight again. That's what they did when Mike Harris unilaterally took away teachers' retirement benefits, so I imagine it will happen again.
But frankly, I support the teachers. You know what? If you choose to go to Nippissing, after it honours a man who tried to destroy public education in Ontario, then you shouldn't come crawling to Ontario's public school teachers for apprenticeship. Go find a private school. Otherwise it's SOCIALISM! (ZOMG!)
Those teachers. They have a long memory. It's surprising how long people can be bitter at you when you use taxpayer money to attack them with lying, deceptive televisions ads.
The only real problem is that teachers are far too polite. They won't actually go through with it. The other problem is that they're really ineffective at public campaigns vilifying people. That was really Mike Harris's forte.
Mike Harris.
Remember him? I do. He's the guy who wanted to "create a crisis in the education system." Why? To improve it? No, that was the lie his government told on the outside. The real reason, as has been recorded, was to "get government out of the education business."
That's why I assume the people at Nippissing are a bunch of masochists. Why would a public institution grant a degree to a man who wanted to destroy education.
The teachers are upset. In fact, they're so upset that they're considering the idea of refusing to give seats to student teachers from Nippissing.
The loyal Harris followers - specifically the people who hate public education and would prefer that the poor suffer in ignorance - will be quick to jump on this as if it were the teachers' fault. They'll tell us that the teachers are "using students" in their fight again. That's what they did when Mike Harris unilaterally took away teachers' retirement benefits, so I imagine it will happen again.
But frankly, I support the teachers. You know what? If you choose to go to Nippissing, after it honours a man who tried to destroy public education in Ontario, then you shouldn't come crawling to Ontario's public school teachers for apprenticeship. Go find a private school. Otherwise it's SOCIALISM! (ZOMG!)
Those teachers. They have a long memory. It's surprising how long people can be bitter at you when you use taxpayer money to attack them with lying, deceptive televisions ads.
The only real problem is that teachers are far too polite. They won't actually go through with it. The other problem is that they're really ineffective at public campaigns vilifying people. That was really Mike Harris's forte.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
