Saturday, April 24, 2010

I DO NOT CARE ABOUT RAHIM JAFFAR OR HELENA GUERGIS

Every day I hear or read something about these two. I do not want to anymore. I do not care about them. Even if they did something illegal, let the RCMP take care of it. Leave it out of the news. There is no need for there to be a headline every day involving these two; there is no need for their names to be brought up on the radio. I spent my 15 minute drive into work this morning listening to a political talk show on CBC talk about whether it was right or not for Jaffar to be lobbying when he's not a registered lobbyist...I DO NOT CARE.

There are more important events occurring in the world right now on which our esteemed media should be taking time to discuss. Perhaps they could discuss the Conservatives attempt to pass the fascist Combatting Terrorism Act, in which suspects can be arrested without charge and have testimony "compelled" from them by a judge. Don't worry though, the liberals will defend our civil liberties...except Ignatieff has a bundle of academic work behind him at Harvard supporting such policies. He goes further to support "aggressive interrogations".

When you can't call it torture anymore, you know we're living in an animal farm....

14 comments:

Chris said...

Animal farm was written by a left-winger.


Also, I don't care about your not caring.

Furlong said...

What is a left winger?

Chris said...

George Orwell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#The_Spanish_Civil_War_and_Catalonia

"In the spring of 1928, he moved to Paris, where the comparatively low cost of living and bohemian lifestyle offered an attraction for many aspiring writers. His Aunt Nellie Limouzin also lived there and gave him social and, if necessary, financial support. He worked on novels, but only Burmese Days survives from that activity. More successful as a journalist, he published articles in Monde (not to be confused with Le Monde), G. K.'s Weekly and Le Progres Civique (founded by the left-wing coalition Le Cartel des Gauches)."

Those book you have read were written to guard against totalitarianism and fascism, and were not intended to be arguments against the genuine left. But this hasn't stopped right wingers from reading it as if Orwell was a far-right conservative.


"At the BBC, Orwell introduced Voice, a literary programme for his Indian broadcasts, and by now was leading an active social life with literary friends, particularly on the political left. Late in 1942, he started writing for the left-wing weekly Tribune directed by Labour MPs Aneurin Bevan and George Strauss. In March 1943 Orwell's mother died and around the same time he told Moore he was starting work on a new book, which would turn out to be Animal Farm."

What is not understood is the fact that Orwell was part of the left-wing that turned away from the Soviet Union when it was clear that Stalin was a right wing reactionary bent on gaining power for himself - he killed the entire left-wing, lol.. Stalin was not a communist, Josh; Stalin was a selfish dictator.


From Orwell directly on "Why He Wrote":

"Rodden refers to the essay "Why I Write", in which Orwell refers to the Spanish Civil War as being his "watershed political experience", saying "The Spanish War and other events in 1936–37, turned the scale. Thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written directly or indirectly against totalitarianism and for Democratic Socialism as I understand it." (emphasis in original)[50] Rodden goes on to explain how, during the McCarthy era, the introduction to the Signet edition of Animal Farm, which sold more 20 million copies, makes use of "the politics of ellipsis":"

Chris said...

In his 1938 essay "Why I joined the Independent Labour Party", published in the ILP-affiliated New Leader, Orwell wrote:

"For some years past I have managed to make the capitalist class pay me several pounds a week for writing books against capitalism. But I do not delude myself that this state of affairs is going to last forever ... the only régime which, in the long run, will dare to permit freedom of speech is a Socialist régime. If Fascism triumphs I am finished as a writer – that is to say, finished in my only effective capacity. That of itself would be a sufficient reason for joining a Socialist party"


Yup, Orwell was a socialist.

Chris said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#Lifestyle

Furlong said...

Ok...so what it is a left winger?

Chris said...

Anybody on the left, of course. I know you think the definition is really hard, but it is not. You can easily identify a right winger or a left winger.. You can only do that because the definitions are pretty constant.

Chris said...

And since this is an economically generated division, you can not have a revolution "from the center" in the long-run, as we are seeing now.

Furlong said...

Yes. It is easy to apply these labels.

I just dislike these labels because while Hitler was on the right, so is Ron Paul, yes ideologically these two are complete opposites.

Chris said...

No, they are not opposites, Josh. Hitler was further to the right than Ron Paul. You see, that's another problem with people like you. You don't seem to understand that Right/Left is a spectrum, a gradation from Right to Left.

Furlong said...

Name me a few things that Hitler and Paul agree on that makes it rational to apply the same label (right-wing) to their political philosophies.

Chris said...

Hitler supported business, religion as long as it bowed to the state, and protected private property. He was also for "protecting this country" from invaders. Paul is a soft nationalist, is a Christian, supports business, and is a champion of private property. Paul is also symbolically sided with those who are against the "big government" of socialism. Hitler, in his first few months in office on the national level, violently suppressed the communists, socialists, and social democrats. He even set up the first concentration camp (political prisoners camp in its inception) to murder the 5000 or so communists he sent there. Dachau.

Furlong said...

Being for free markets and the freedom to practice one's religion with out interference from the state is fundamental;y different from Hitler who took over businesses from private citizens (which is a definitely an example that he was NOT for protecting private) and mass murdering people of a particular faith. Paul and Hitler are on opposite ends of the political spectrum here. Two strikes.

Paul would also never endorse the state using violence to get its way, and spends most of his time fighting against state violence over seas and domestically. Third strike. You're out.

I'll give you one more try though. What political philosophies do Ron Paul and Adolph Hitler share that would make it rational for them to share the political label.

Chris said...

"Being for free markets and the freedom to practice one's religion with out interference from the state is fundamental;y different from Hitler who took over businesses from private citizens (which is a definitely an example that he was NOT for protecting private)"

He only took those businesses when they got in the way of his nationalism. Other than those rare occurrences, Hitler was 100% for allowing private property to function and produce for the Reich.

"and mass murdering people of a particular faith."

It wasn't their Faith that got them killed, Josh, it was their race and their standing in relation to German Germans. Hitler was a German nationalist. The Jews were a well-to-do minority. They were thus the perfect target.

"Paul and Hitler are on opposite ends of the political spectrum here."

Yes, opposite ends of a segment of the right wing part of the political spectrum.

"Paul would also never endorse the state using violence to get its way, and spends most of his time fighting against state violence over seas and domestically."

Paul is 100% for subverting communism by using state force. He is also 100% for protecting private property using the barrel of a gun. Don't kid yourself.