A Better Alternative To The Politics Of Today

After watching a half dozen elections over the past year in Canada and voting in a couple, as well as, the ongoing GOP primary I’m all but electioned out. It isn’t that I’m tired of elections or voting, I’m tired of hearing the same old stuff over and over again. We need a political party with vision, a political party unafraid to face the challenges of our times with bold ideas and innovative thinking. 

There was such a party in Canada once. It stood tall and campaigned on the issues that mattered. It fought for those issues from the 1960s through to the 1990s and then finally dissolved in frustration and disappointment as the bigger and better financed parties overwhelmed it with election ad spending.

It was called The Rhinoceros Party of Canada and I intend to encourage the resurrection of the principles and values for which it stood and the issues for which it fought so hard. 

The Rhinoceros Party platform was solid. It was made of wood and was about 2’ high.


Beyond that it put forward the issues that matter and I want people to remember those issues in this election year and demand that candidates for all parties give them proper consideration. Below are the issues raised by the Rhinos with some slight amendments due to the fact that it is now 15 years later and some issues have evolved. The amendments are in italics so that the original Rhinoceros Party is credited for the ideas it developed.

The Canadian Navy demonstrating how it will tow
Antarctica to the North Pole

1. Canada will tow the Antarctic to the North Pole giving the country a monopoly on cold in the event of another Cold War.

2. The Law of Gravity is to be repealed immediately upon election of the Rhinoceros Party to government.

3. Abolish the environment because it's too hard to keep clean and it takes up so much space

4. Canada will declare war on the United States, surrender immediately and apply for foreign aid from the U.S. as part of a national infrastructure rebuilding program.

5. The National Debt will be put on Visa, MasterCard and American Express cards and only the minimum monthly payments will be made in perpetuity.

6. The Trans-Canada Highway will be made a one-way road ending in the Pacific Ocean in Vancouver. Only really stupid people will be allowed to drive it and there will be no exit ramps before Vancouver.

Based on this photo it would appear that more than
a few of the 1000 Islands are missing

7. An inventory will be taken of the Thousand Islands to make sure that the Americans haven't stolen any.

8. More accessibility to higher education will be achieved by building taller schools. University tuition will be free. Parking and lockers will cost $10,000 per year.

9. Illiteracy will be made an official language as it appears the country is half way there now it might as well be officially recognized.

10. The country will aggressively pursue sustainable energy programs, particularly from wind. All Canadians will be issued with beanies that have small propellers on top to harness the wind’s energy and a new hot air trapping system will be developed and hooked up to Parliament. Cattle farts will be captured and converted to a usable fuel to replace unethical oil. (we’ll see how long the environmentalists like having their cars smell like bullshit)

11. Canada will annex the Turks & Caicos Islands and offer discounts on Speedo thongs for men. (Don’t visualize please, just move along). The Department of Tourism will then promote Canada internationally as a tropical destination in order to boost tourism revenues.

Driving lanes will be abolished.

12. Drivers, especially in winter, will be permitted to decide for themselves which side of the road they wish to use.

13. All species will be declared endangered except those that are really, really good to eat. 

14. We will end crime by legalizing it.

15. The National Anthem will be renamed “Oh Canada, eh?”

16. The Order of Canada medal will be replaced by The Suggestion of Canada medal to make it more polite and less demanding.

17. We will tear down the Rocky Mountains so that Albertans can see the Pacific sunset

18. We will solve the low Old Age Security issue by giving all retired Canadians the same pensions as retiring senators.

Silly? Perhaps but compare these policy promises to some of the foolishness offered by today's politicians. How about the Gingrich plan to put a colony on the moon and when it reaches 13,000 people have the moon declared a state. Or the recent promise of the Liberal Party of Canada to develop a national dementia strategy. We face serious economic and social issues in our democracies today but some of things coming out of the mouths of politicians make the Rhinoceros Party look absolutely prophetic and there is little doubt that it would be considered mainstream these days.


While the Rhinoceros Party is long gone, their ideals live on. It is my hope that each person who reads this will rise up and demand our politicians stop pandering to special interest, garner some common sense and trade their arrogance for a little self-respect and respect for  the electorate.

As for the rest of us? Forget occupying parks with tent cities and tweeting one liners. Put pressure on candidates from whatever political party you support to stop their foolishness and start focusing on the issues that really matter. …whether they are those originally espoused by the Rhinoceros Party or not.

Enough is enough!

© 2012 Maggie's Bear

all rights reserved

The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others

More Inconvenient Truth For The Global Warming Crowd

photo: Science & Public Policy.org

Maybe Al Gore got it right when he named his alarmist video about impending climate catastrophe "An Inconvenient Truth". It appears there are an increasing number of inconvenient truths coming out about global warming but it appears they are more inconvenient for the movement than the planet.

A few days ago, I posted an article by Rogue Operator which took the issue of global warming head on. I won’t repeat his findings here (a link to it is below) but hard on the heels of that article comes new data from the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. In fact, it appears we are headed for a serious period of global cooling.

Oops!

Environmentalists have been talking about global warming since the turn of the new century. They have fretted and jetted all over the world in a desperate attempt to make the blind see and the deaf hear. They have protested, conferenced, accused, warned, worried and demanded great change and expenditure to head off global catastrophe as the direct result of man-made global warming and it now appears, they were three years too late. The earth isn’t warming at all, it’s cooling down and the causes have nothing to do with humanity.

Solar flares: photo: Suntrek.org

It is primarily solar dependent and that really shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.

The earth has been around for a very long time and has gone through significant periods of climate fluctuation. 

Humanity has been around for a mere 100,000 years or so and has been industrialized for only the past two centuries. It would seem to suggest, just on that simple basis, that perhaps climate change is naturally occurring and is going to happen regardless of what we do.

Think about it. There was a mini-ice-age in the 1600’s followed by a period of global warming. In fact, the middle ages of the last eon saw both global cooling and global warming. Not only was it not man-made, humanity survived it quite well.

The hysteria around this issue has become absurd in recent years especially considering that the science continues to contradict itself as it unfolds. Climatologists are not in universal agreement on whether there is global warming, global cooling or what the causes of climate change are. When you know that little about something, you lose the right to lecture anyone else about it or to set or influence public policy.

Of course, funding and research grants are at stake so the rhetoric will continue because in the end, climate change was never about….well….climate change, it became an industry. It’s big business now that supports scientists, researchers, activists, NGO’s, lobby groups and politicians and political parties. A lot of jobs and grant money hinges on keeping the world focused on the fear of impending climactic disaster. (Not to mention those really neat conferences held in places like Denmark and South Africa).

In reality, this issue like so many others is more about money and control than anything else. Consider the latest nonsense coming out of the movement.

Cliff Mass, Weather Blog: TV Weathercasters

Climate change activists are concerned that there aren’t enough media meteorologists who support their cause and are now trying to petition the media to hire more meteorologists who believe in climate change. 

It appears that the majority of media meteorologists do not believe in climate change and that has the environmental movement in a tizzy. It, of course, has not occurred to the  climate change crowd that perhaps because they work with it every day, the majority of meteorologists don’t believe in climate change because they don't see any significant long-term change in weather trends. Nor has it occurred to the movement that perhaps the failure lies within their own ranks because they have been unsuccessful at getting their message out in a consistent and responsible way. There aren't too many people outside of the movement who take the Fossil Awards nonsense very seriously.

Perhaps, though the simple truth is that  those who actually think for themselves instead of merely reacting to the latest “bumper sticker” cause are increasingly dismissing the entire climate change debate as predicated on conflicted science at best or junk science at worst and those who are screaming for sacrifice as misinformed activism, fanatics and the lunatic fringe.

And with good reason.

Since 1990, scientists predicted an ice age, then global warming, then climate change and now once again global cooling. Methinks the global warming crowd have cried wolf a little too often. When they finally get it right, if they ever do, perhaps then we can talk and reconsider ridiculous programs like the Kyoto Accord. Until then, I suggest we focus on more serious issues like unemployment, poverty, ending violence and war, crumbling economies and affordable healthcare.  

Unlike climate change, those are real issues and we’ve wasted enough time on, and been distracted from, them by the global warming nonsense long enough.

RELATED

George Carlin And The Bear On Saving The Planet
http://bearsrant.blogspot.ca/2011/09/screw-green.html

Environmental Opportunism
http://bearsrant.blogspot.ca/2011/12/canada-and-environmentalist-hypocrisy.html



New data shows no global warming in 15 years

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

Environmental activists go after climate change deniers in the television weather business

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/30/global-warming-activists-seek-to-purge-deniers-among-local-weathermen/

Science and Public Policy Orgnaization - 35 Inconvenient Truths, How Al Gore Got It Wrong

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

Rogue Operator on the myths of Global Warming

http://bearsrant.blogspot.com/2012/01/guest-contributor-rogue-operator-rips.html

© 2012 Maggie's Bear

all rights reserved

The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others

When Governments Ignore The Law - There Is No Law

After being away for a few days with only limited Internet access, I logged into Twitter this afternoon and quickly found myself unintentionally caught up in a discussion about Omar Khadr.  For those unfamiliar with the Khadr case, Mr. Khadr was the Canadian teenager who killed an American medic with a grenade in Afghanistan following a firefight in 2002.

Omar Khadr

I am not going to defend Mr. Khadr’s actions or try to make sense out of the senselessness that is war. People die in wars and in most cases, for no good purpose. The fact that we still use violence as a means to resolve disputes is a testament to how little we have progressed as a civilized species.

My three opponents in the discussion clearly think Mr. Khadr deserves whatever he gets and I understand their anger with his actions and have no real issue with his sentence. He pled guilty and accepted a sentence that tacked an additional eight years on to the seven he had already served.  My issue is with government and the rule of law.

Mr. Khadr was arrested in 2002 at the age of fifteen and was held in Guantanamo for 7 years without due process. In other words, he was held illegally. He wasn’t even formally charged with a crime until 2006 after the United States Government passed The Military Commissions Act of 2006, a law which was retroactive or in other words, a law that made previous behavior suddenly illegal by a new set of definitions.

Think about that for a moment. Think about the power that accrues to a government that can change the law to make something done a year earlier not only illegal for the future but also illegal for the past. Think about a the power of a government that can ignore it's own constitution and legal system to force it's will.

It means that you could have been a law-abiding citizen and suddenly find yourself under arrest because your government passed a law that was retroactive. Consider how close to Orwell's 1984 that really is and what it means for the rule of law and respect for both democracy and the constitutions and charters of rights upon which most democracies are built.

A number of organizations from the United Nations to various legal associations all pointed out the danger to democracy that this situation held but to no avail and Mr. Khadr remained in prison. In 2009, he pled guilty in a plea bargain that was as much about putting an end to his Kafka-like circumstance as it was to an admission of guilt. 

He is under both American and Canadian law, entitled to serve his sentence in Canada after the first full year is served in the United States. The United States, for its part, had already announced it would not stand in the way of Mr. Khadr being repatriated to Canada. It is the Canadian government that has ignored its own laws and Charter of Rights.

Despite appeals from UNICEF, The Canadian Bar Association and Amnesty International, among others, The Canadian Government has steadfastly refused to repatriate Mr. Khadr to Canada as is his right as a Canadian citizen. He remains the only foreign national not repatriated by their government in the history of Guantanamo which isn’t much of an endorsement for this current government’s sense of justice which I find particularly hypocritical considering this current government's emphasis on law and order.

It gets worse.

In 2009, the Federal Court ordered the government to repatriate Mr. Khadr after determining that his rights as guaranteed under the Charter had been violated. The government filed an appeal with the Federal Court of Appeal only to lose again. They then took the case to the Supreme Court of Canada which also ruled that Mr. Khadr’s rights were being violated by the government but the government has continued to ignore all court rulings and this country’s constitution and charter.

This is not about Mr. Khadr nor is it about having him released from prison. It is about a government that has taken it upon itself to ignore the law and the courts because it doesn’t agree with their rulings but the law isn’t here for their convenience. It is here to protect citizens from exactly this kind of unilateral and capricious action by a government. Governments come and go. It is the law that is the constant and that protects us from the actions of others, including governments.

When a government can decide which laws it wishes to uphold and for whom, there is no law and we are no longer a democratic country protected by our laws. We are no better than the very societies too many Canadians have died fighting to protect us from.

It is becoming all too prevalent as more and more often, democratic governments ignore or refuse to enforce the laws they are sworn to uphold. In Ontario, the Premier and the Chief of the Provincial Police refused to enforce a court order to remove native protesters. In cities across North America, mayors refused to take action against Occupy protesters who vandalized their cities  resulting in millions of dollars in damage.

Governments play footloose and fancy free with access to information laws and manipulate election spending laws to help themselves get re-elected.

If our governments aren't prepared to uphold our laws and the rule of law for the worst of us, it won’t be long before the law will not protect the best of us from those same governments.

Mr. Khadr has pled guilty and is serving his sentence. He is not the issue. It is the actions of government who have treated our laws with so little respect that threaten each and every one of us. While it is Mr. Khadr today, it could just as easily be you or I tomorrow. It could be your home or mine that the Premier of Ontario allows to be overrun by native protesters as he did to home owners in Caledonia. It could be your store or business that is vandalized, your car or mine that is burned by rioters that city governments were too timid to confront.

When government refuses to obey or to enforce its own laws, there is nothing left but tyranny and it is only a matter of time before that tyranny touches someone who is innocent....and that could be any one of us or any member of our family.

If that happens, there will be no one to ensure that the law protects you and I......or them.

© 2012 Maggie's Bear

all rights reserved

The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others

Guest Contributor: Rogue Operator Rips Apart The Global Warming Myth

Why the Greens are Bluffing on Manmade Global Warming
by Rogue Operator

Time to call the enviro-commies’ bluff.  I’m going all in on a monster.

The manmade climate change debate has centered around the question of whether or not man contributes to climate change. To answer this question shortly: Yes, man does.

But the debate really needs to center around three interrelated questions.

How much does man contribute to the greenhouse effect?

If the answer is ‘significantly,’ what if anything can man do to offset any rising temperatures caused by carbon dioxide emissions?

Fundamentally, would it be wise or far-sighted for man to attempt to change the climate (thereby changing the climate once again)?

Let’s lay out the facts first.  Then we’ll carve the watermelon.

1. According to figures taken from the Department of Energy, the following shows man’s contribution to global greenhouse gases.

Water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse effect, and 99.999% of water vapor in the atmosphere is naturally occurring.

• Carbon dioxide contributes 3.618% to the greenhouse effect.
• Man contributes about 3.207% to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
• Man thus contributes .28% to the greenhouse effect. Put in terms of a ratio, man contributes 1/357.14 to the greenhouse effect.

This scientifically verifiable answer should be interpreted to mean that man does not contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect, which is not even the only factor in global warming. Solar fluctuations also play a role.

2. But, if man should shrug off these facts and decide to stop producing carbon dioxide altogether, what effect would it have?

In raw terms, man contributes yearly about 2 parts per million (ppm) carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

There is currently about 380ppm total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

According to scientific projections, man could stop producing carbon dioxide altogether, including by going into extinction, and this would drop global temperatures by .1  degree Celsius.

In fifty years.

3. Finally, if man should decide to go ahead anyway and do everything short of complete extinction to prevent climate cataclysm, what effect would it have? This answer is a bit more prosaic.

Civilization rose along with global warming since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. The idea that man can single-handedly reverse the course of “climate change” is not only Sysiphean in its absurdity, it is self-defeating.

Who is to say the moment we take action in the name of affecting the climate, for example, stripping our industrial base and inhibiting development in third world nations, that the world would not be hit by another ice age the likes of the Little Ice Age that began in the sixteenth century? Wouldn’t our actions taken in the name of climate justice have been self-defeating?

A closing question.  Should the sheer fact that man contributes in some miniscule fashion to climate change give the government carte blanche to regulate all aspects of human life? Is such control justified by some vague appeal to a “dirty hands” argument? Only in the mind of a totalitarian politician or a cloistered bureaucrat would this be the case, and neither tend to have any appreciable respect for individual rights or the market. But that’s kind of the point, isn’t it?

So you green grifters thought you were going to be ushered into power on the BIG LIE that man is responsible for catastrophic climate change? Think again.  Hundreds of millions of people are catching on to the environmentalist myths, and the truth-sayers are gaining ground on the professional liars every day.

For more from Rogue Operator
http://rogueoperator.wordpress.com/

© 2012 rogueoperator

all rights reserved

Funny Tweets For January's Blahs

It’s that time again, time to take a break from taking ourselves too seriously and remember that we were given the gift of laughter to help us remember the better part of who we are. It isn’t always easy to remember that with all the ‘stuff’ going on in the big world but fortunately there are always a few folks on Twitter only too happy to remind us. Here are some who reminded me this week.

@SgtBlueEyes Adam 

Spider-man: with great power comes great responsibility. Women: with great cleavage I have no responsibilities ever again!!

@streicher187 

Finolly gradiating the sixed grade afer ten trys

@Lisa_Hack 

The children of Israel wandered around the desert for 40 years. Even in biblical times, men wouldn’t ask for directions.

@Blondeandsexy67 

Surprise sex is the best way to be woken up... Unless you are in prison!

@WhoCuppedMyCake 

Underwear isn't the greatest thing but it's right next to it.

@markyptinting 

Me and my mate went down the pub last night and we shared our best chat up lines. Some of his were so good I nearly went back to his place!

@ItsLadyMC 

I'd like to see things from your point of view, but I can't get my head that far up my ass. 

@ChorePush Chore Push 

I always loan people money because it's an opportunity to never see them again if they don't pay me back.

@pourmecoffee 

There must be a way we can trivialize our elections more. I know it doesn't seem like it now, but we can do it if we try.

Thanks to these great Tweeps. (I don't like the label Tweeps but I guess it's better than Twit). It's good to chuckle and if we can still find a laugh in the midst of everything else going on out there, just maybe we're going to be ok.

© 2012 Maggie's Bear

all rights reserved

The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others

The PETA Hypocrisy

I want to talk about PETA today or as the acronym spells out; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. I’m going to put aside, for a moment, my own personal bias about people who put things and animals ahead of the welfare of other people and just look at PETA and some of its attitudes and practices.

In the video below, a PETA spokesperson debates the NRA. I have no particular fondness for the NRA and personally believe there are too many guns around although I have no issue with legal ownership and use of a firearm. But this debate was interesting, not because of either of the participants but because of a simple question asked by a member of the audience. Take a look and then we’ll talk.

I'm opposed to cruelty to animals or to people either for that matter and speak out and support efforts to end it.  My issue is hypocrisy. The SPCA has a pretty good batting average when it comes to finding homes for animals that have been abused or abandoned, significantly better than PETA’s in fact but it is PETA that is constantly lecturing the world about animal rights.

In some jurisdictions, PETA, actually kills somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4 of the animals it takes in and usually without any effort to try and find homes for them. In fact, PETA sometimes goes to various SPCA shelters to "save" animals which it later kills. They number in the thousands. The SPCA, by contrast, has a placement rate in the 75% range. I'll leave it to you to decide for yourself which organization actually works harder on behalf of the welfare of animals. As seen in the video, PETA considers euthanasia is a kinder alternative for abandoned animals feeling unloved than allowing them to live.

Let’s assume for the moment that animals have the same rights as human beings and seeing as how we now agree they are equal, let’s substitute the word animal with person. PETA’s solution, as suggested in the video, would simply be to kill the majority of people who were homeless or unloved.

Isn’t that lovely!

I don’t actually believe that is what PETA would or wants to do nor do I believe they are motivated by a maniacal desire to kill animals but it does underscore the basic weakness in their position. It demands equal rights for animals but even PETA doesn't treat animals and people equally. Clearly, if PETA would not kill people the way it kills animals simply because they are homeless, it doesn't see animals and human beings as equals. If, as PETA suggests, animals have the same rights as people then PETA should be treating animals the same way they would treat people in similar circumstances and clearly, killing people isn't an option they would consider so why is it acceptable to them to kill so many animals? I find it particularly hypocritical considering how much they carry on about others killing animals for food or medical research.

I do believe,  that like too many with a burning cause, PETA has lost its perspective. Consider the reaction to President Obama killing a fly in this video. 

Four children die from abuse in the United States every day but PETA, while quick to condemn the killing of fly, remains silent. For me that is clearly a very confused set of values.

The simple fact is that it is PETA’s basic ideology as much as their practice that is fundamentally flawed. Nobody should be permitted to harm an animal out of cruelty but that doesn’t mean they have the same rights as human beings and flies definitely are not ever going to achieve equality.

Maggie and I have a dog, Jasper, and a cat, Fat Ass. They’re pets. They are affectionate, sometimes funny and good company and we have a responsibility to care for them and treat them well. But as pets, they don’t have jobs, income or go to school. They accept no responsibility for their share of the mortgage, the food they eat or for emptying the litter box. Neither of them can read, write nor work the remote control on the television which means both are reasonably uninformed about what is going on in the big world, which is a good thing because neither is allowed to vote nor wants to.

Basically they live to frolic. Jasper lives for many things: eating, sleeping, running around the yard and treating the world like it is his personal bathroom. He also enjoys being patted, going for drives in the car and having a fuss made over him. Fat Ass merely lives to sleep, eat and poop. She hates the car, doesn't care much for Jasper or I and tolerates Maggie when it's dinner time.

Maggie loves them both and I am on mildly friendly terms with them, well, at least with Jasper. Fat Ass and I never speak and we’re both content with that. Are they equal to us? Not even close but that is no reason to treat them badly. They are living, sentient beings and there is no justification for hurting them but there is also no justification for elevating their status to sharing equal rights with people. They are pets, not ‘non-human companions’.  They are animals and that’s all there is too it.

The next time PETA starts to lecture the world about the evils of killing animals for food it should take an inventory of the thousands of abandoned animals it has killed simply for which it didn’t have the resources, or couldn’t be bothered, to find shelter. 

It needs to stop fretting over the use of animals in medical research and ask itself what alternatives there are to developing necessary vaccines and ongoing research against diseases like cancer and AIDS or diseases that kill animals. Not all medical research is only for human diseases. If PETA can justify killing animals because they don't have a home, how is it that it can't justify using animals in medical research to save both other animals and people?.

Hunting is another big issue for PETA and I have no issue with them being opposed to hunting, many are. I personally am not although I think it is a bit ridiculous to walk miles into the bush away from your truck only to shoot something that weighs as much as your truck. I often wonder how hunters get a 1500 lb. moose out of the woods. But that aside, most hunters make good use of the animals they hunt and hunting for food is as old as humanity. 

Perhaps PETA should be more concerned with people who hunt other people in our cities. I don’t know how anyone justifies that.

I don’t wish PETA any more harm than I do Jasper or even Fat Ass but I wish they’d stop lecturing the rest of us with their self-righteous hyperbole and think about things before they took down a few thousand more dogs and cats. Perhaps instead of killing them, they could consider turning them over to the SPCA in the countries in which they operate. The SPCA at least has a much better placement success rate than PETA and it seems to me that it is something PETA is supposed to want….isn’t it?

At the very least, perhaps PETA should remember it's president's response to President Obama's murder of a fly.

"He isn’t the Buddha, he’s a human being

and human beings have a long way

to go before they think before they act."

Ingrid Newkirk, PETA President

That's good advice Ingrid. Perhaps it's time for PETA to consider putting it into practice.

© 2012 Maggie's Bear

all rights reserved

The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others

Our Choice Of Language Betrays What We Are

US & Canada signing softwood lumber
agreement in 2006 (photo trade.gov)

I read a somewhat innocuous news story this morning (see link below) about a joint announcement by Canada and the United States to extend the current softwood lumber agreement originally signed in 2006.

This agreement, while not perfect, resolved most outstanding issues and ended years of bickering and wrangling between the two countries. It also resulted in the elimination of countervailing tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber by the Americans which opened up opportunities in American markets, created jobs on both sides of the border and saw the return of $4.5 billion in previously charged duties to Canadian companies.

Now, you would think that this if not a great thing for the Canadian software lumber industry is at the very least not a bad thing but for some it is nothing less than treason.

Don’t take my word for it, read some of the comments in response to the article in the link below. It is unbelievable how some people respond to things based on their particular bias rather than on the facts. Some comments were based on information so ill-informed as to think that the agreement meant Canada was shipping logs, not milned lumber to the States. I’m not interested in defending the softwood lumber agreement or even the industry. They can take care of that themselves. It was the commentary that grabbed my attention.

How does negotiating an agreement with your largest trading partner that benefits one of your largest industries suddenly become treason in anyone eyes? This was, after all, an agreement that previous governments from both countries had been negotiating and trying to resolve for decades.

If nothing else, Occupy has elevated
hyperbole to an art form

But then, that’s the way of today isn’t it? Too many people form an opinion based on their personal prejudices and then look for causes to support their opinions.

Take a look at the Occupy Movement.

It started as a protest against corrupt practices on Wall Street and has now become little more than an ongoing rant that makes my articles look positively poetic.  Got a beef with someone or something? Join Occupy and they’ll add it to the list. Solutions? They have none but they have a long list of complaints, criticisms, accusations and allegations.

If you’re not for them, you’re not only against them….you’re a criminal, a traitor, an idiot or at best you’re simply not from around here. Facts are irrelevant, contradictions don’t trouble them in the least. They chant ‘down with corporate America’ even as they flock to buy and use the very products it provides. They demand respect for the very rights they trample for others and they criticize others for spending their money (read that as “their” money) on things rather than helping the poor while causing millions of dollars in vandalism damage to cities across North America; millions that could have been used to help the poor.

Protesting to protect tree using paper signs and sticks
that came from....trees. No irony or hypocrisy there.

The environmental movement is the same. Hug a tree and make the world a better place reads the sign….on cardboard……that came from a tree.  Many of the leaders of this movement are quick to condemn the use of fossil fuels and actively jet around the world to make that point, no doubt believing that their jets run on solar power. Even Greenpeace, that protector of the environment is out there in its little boats, spewing greenhouse gases into the air from its outboard motors in defense of clean air, dolphins and baby seals. (meanwhile, children around the world go to bed hungry at night but Greenpeace is too busy saving the world to save people, especially children)

Personally, I don’t much care what people believe or what causes they embrace no matter how poorly informed or thought out those causes might be. What I do care about is the extreme language being used and it mostly comes from the left (although the right has its share of extreme vocabulary too), those warm, tree-hugging, save the planet, save animals, save the environment, save life folks who want to save everything except those dirty, treasonous bastards who don’t agree with them.

Here is just a small sample of the language now being used by those who profess to have humanity’s best interest at heart.  They are in no particular order:

This is just a small sample of what
a true police state looks like

Traitor. Fascist. Eco-terrorist. Criminal. Arch-criminal. Asshole (I actually use this one myself but only when someone actually is an asshole.  Hitler. Communist. Racist. Terrorist. Murderer. Nazi.  I’ve seen all of these words, and too many more, on social media sites to characterize someone that someone else didn’t like or with whom they disagreed.

People use these words to label others who do not hold the same opinions, support the same cause or politics as they do. I confess that I don’t get it. I fail to understand why exercising your right to form your own opinion has suddenly become a criminal act or why voting for what you believe in makes you a fascist, a Nazi or a socialist commie sympathizer.

What in the Hell has happened to us?

Are we so weak in our opinions that the only way we feel they hold any value is to try and demean anyone who doesn’t agree with us?  Are our causes and beliefs so weak that they can only be shored up by tearing down those of others?

Yelling and screaming have become
how too many express themselves

That isn’t democracy in action folks. It isn’t even good manners. It’s rabble babble by people who don’t respect the rights, the values, the opinions or the ideas of others. Too often, these are the same people who will rush to defend something like baby seals while almost tripping over the homeless person lying on the street in their path.

The road to perdition is long but easily followed and our societies are racing down it like it’s an expressway. We can’t talk to each other anymore which is why we don’t build consensus on issues. We merely posture, attack, accuse, complain, criticize and denigrate. We have no respect for the opinions of others which means very few have respect for ours.

The distance between a liberal and conservative isn’t very great. You only have to look at government policies in any democracy over the past fifty years to see that but to hear the language being used you would think the gap was miles wide.

It isn’t and our language isn’t doing anything to bring us together. If anything, our choice of language in presenting our opinions and in debating those held by others betrays not only the strength or weakness of our own but who and what we are as individuals.

There was a time when this kind of rhetoric was the province of extremists and the chronically under-informed. It has spread and is replacing informed, civilized debate. It will get worse before it gets better.

Link to article on extension of the Softwood Lumber Agreement between Canada and the US

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/01/23/pol-canada-us-trade-softwood-lumber.html?cmp=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

© 2012 Maggie's Bear

all rights reserved

The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others

My Five Favourite Funny Commercials

I spent most of my career in advertising and marketing and have been part of more promotional campaigns than I can remember. Even if those days are behind me, I have never lost my enjoyment of a good creative idea well executed. I have a particular fondness for funny commercials that still deliver the message. Here are five of my all time favourites. Thanks to YouTube, I am able to enjoy them again and again. I hope you enjoy them too.

1. Budweiser: Sleigh Ride 2006 (USA)

2. Bud Light - Bad Dog!  2007 (USA)

3. Kia Soul - Black Sheep Hamsters  2010 (USA)

4. Optika 2008 (Denmark) - The caption at the end reads: "Glasses broken? Opitker 1hr!

please note: this commercial is highly suggestive and may be offensive to some.

5. Tim Horton's (Canada) - Proud Fathers 2009

This is absolutely one of my all time favourites 

You may have seen some or all of these before but I hope that like me, they still bring a chuckle and a laugh. God knows we seem to be in short supply of laughter these days.

The GOP Candidates Respond

CNN's John King took a blistering hit from Newt Gingrich in last night's debate after Mr. King asked Mr. Gingrich to comment on allegations raised earlier in the week by Mr. Gingrich's ex-wife. It didn't get better for the hapless Mr. King who had stood with a "deer in the headlights" look during Mr. Gingrich's response when the other GOP candidates were asked for their comments.

Each of the candidates in turn spoke to the opening question about the issue raised by Mr. Gingrich's wife earlier in the week but if he was looking for a little support, controversy or even some sympathy, Mr. King was sadly disappointed.

Mr. Santorum spoke first wandering all over the place about forgiveness in a poorly crafted attempt to show he was not criticizing Mr. Gingrich while leaving it clear that Mr. Gingrich might have something that requires it. Mitt Romney gave an excellent, one sentence response that pretty much dismissed Mr. King's first question as trivial while Mr. Paul managed to continue Mr. Gingrich's attack on the media, going so far as to suggest that it would be better to get corporations out of the media rather than worrying about them influencing politics.

It was clear that nobody was going to put a dog in this fight and Mr. King was left pretty much standing on his own after having asked his original question.

At the end of the day, it was GOP candidates 1, CNN 0 and the poorly thought out attempt to embarrass Mr. Gingrich not only backfired, it galvanized criticism of the media by both the candidates and the audience. 

It is indicative of how badly the mainstream media have become at covering these events. The questions that get asked are often trite, biased and uneven. The opening graphics for the debates are more appropriate for a new Bourne Identity flick starring Matt Damon than they are a major political debate and the coverage is more like sports coverage than news. 

Increasingly, the mainstream media treat the news as entertainment and while Mr. King inadvertently opened the door for a very entertaining ten minutes last night, it doesn't serve the public very well. It is small wonder that more and more people are turning to other resources for information and news.

© 2012 Maggie's Bear

all rights reserved

The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others

Gingrich 'Owns" CNN's John King In GOP Debate

CNN's John King walked into a minefield with his opening question of the GOP debate in South Carolina, with a question to Newt Gingrich regarding allegations made by Mr. Gingrich's wife earlier in the week. The question is legitimate but better for a 1 on 1 interview than a multi-candidate debate.

Mr. Gingrich was prepared and seized the question as an opportunity to turn a negative into a positive and within five minutes, owned John King. I am pretty sure that the other three candidates who might have initially thought this was an issue that would have hurt Mr. Gingrich are now wishing John King hadn't raised it. In fact, I'm pretty sure Mr. King is wishing he had opened with another question now.

There is an old adage in the legal profession that you never ask a witness a question for which you don't already know the answer. It is only the inexperienced and naive or a fool who tries to score a quick, cheap point against someone with the experience of a career politician like Mr. Gingrich.

Within seconds, John King was on the defensive and within minutes, whether he is the best candidate or not, Mr. Gingrich was given the opportunity to redirect the entire issue away from himself and his past and turn it into how the mainstream media has sunk to new lows.

The crowd loved it, giving Mr. Gingrich a standing ovation and no doubt it will play well out in the broader community. Indeed, the audience response was such that the other candidates on the stage were extremely cautious in their response when Mr. King asked them for their comments on the issue.

It's indicative of the growing lack of respect many have for the main-stream media and was a telling moment and a rookie mistake by a seasoned journalist that played right into the hands of Mr.Gingrich. It allowed Mr. Gingrich to deflect the issue and his opening response overshadowed the rest of the debate. It is also illustrative of the fact that the media are less interested in allowing the news to unfold as it will and have become too busy trying to create news by stirring controversy. This controversy blew up in Mr. King's face and Mr. Gingrich wiped the floor with him.

The rest of the debate was spirited and the candidates engaged with the issues but this debate was over before it began. Whether he won on the issues or not, Mr. Gingrich won the overall moment despite how qualified or effective the others might have been in the debate. It is Mr. Gingrich's response to John King that will be talked about just as it was one of the main topics of discussion by pundits immediately following the debate. The opinions on the other issues by candidates will be secondary. Whatever his motives may have been, John King just gave the Newt Gingrich campaign a major shot in the arm and a huge boost in support within the conservative movement.

© 2011 Maggie's Bear

all rights reserved

The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others

Some Funny Tweets From Some Funny Tweeps

Time again to lighten the journey with a look at some of the funnier tweets that crossed my timeline this past week or so. January always seems to be a bit blah after all the hoopla of Christmas and it's nice to have a few chuckles to brighten up those cold winter nights. Chuckle away.

The Helix Nebula, often called
The Eye of God

@ginger_ish 
I've never noticed before how clickity-clackity my bones are. Boy, my hearing has improved with age.

@RealJimmySnow 
Every time you call out grammar mistakes, the errorists win.

@greatgagagod lee harth 
I believe in God. I just don't trust anybody who works for him.

@QuotesPedia 
The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim ~ E. W. Dijkstra

@MizzSlaughter
I just found two Oreo cookies missing frosting, a rosary, and the Exorcist DVD in my bed. What the fuck happened last night?

@DosieDoe Dosie'sRandomThought

Some haircuts may be harder to
fix than others

Just saw a sign - $10 haircuts - I am so tempted to open a Hair Salon right next door and put up a sign: - We repair $10 haircuts –

@Thumper Selah 
4 out of 3 people have trouble with fractions

@gansettbeach Chris Andrews 
Someone has described heaven as a family reunion that never ends. What could hell possibly be like? Home videos of the same reunion?

@willoffendyou Will O'Fend 
The kids want to go and see the chipmunk movie. I hope I fall down the stairs or get violent diarrhea.

@ashley_barnhill 
Last night I told this hot guy I'm a part-time fluffer and I do hair. He googled "fluffer" then walked away. -- yep, still got it!

@biakabutuka BT
Damn I get nervous on a big dock, must be all the pier pressure.

@StephStartsOver 
My mother is not even on Twitter and I've already blocked her

Keep 'em coming folks. There's just way to much anger and frustration in the world and we need to lighten  up a bit and share a couple of laughs if we're going to see our way through to the other side.

Criticizing The Society That Made You A Success

I wrote the other day about Michael Moore calling older American voters racists but there is something beyond that statement I don’t understand about Mr. Moore and many like him.

Mr. Moore could be considered a part of the economic 1%. He is worth, by most estimates, somewhere in the area of $50 million and continues to make a considerable income from his films. I don’t criticize him for that, in fact, I think it’s quite an accomplishment and he should be congratulated for it, even if you don’t particularly care for his documentaries. What I don’t understand is why he isn’t celebrating his success and using it as an example to others on how they too can seize opportunity through hard work and effort.

Instead, Mr. Moore, along with a host of A-list celebrities, is out there telling young people and any one else who will listen that Americans are “slaves”, downtrodden and mistreated by the economically privileged, of which he is a member. In effect, he promotes class warfare rather than accomplishing success.

He is not alone.

There are more individuals making up the 1% who are in the entertainment industry and professional sports than are working on Wall Street. Even the left-leaning environmental movement has more than a couple of economic 1%ers and the Occupy movement receives support from people like billionaire George Soros and his Tides Movement.

Again, I don’t begrudge anyone the money they’ve earned or how they spend it. What I continue to fail to understand is why so many who have benefited from the opportunity our democracies have provided continue to speak out in support of the idea that people are slaves, oppressed and their rights are being stripped away.

Do the people protesting in cities across North America honestly believe that a Bill Gates, a Mark Zukerburg or a Steve Jobs; a Susan Sarandan or another celebrity could have risen from obscurity to become billionaires in places like North Korea, Syria or Iran? What right do they have to be telling the world that they live in a society that oppresses people and why aren't they telling those who feel oppressed about how to find the opportunities that are available to them?

Can those who have achieved no longer see that they only had that opportunity because they were free to pursue their careers, their hopes and aspirations in the democracies in which they live?

photo: gamefags.com

A major league baseball pitcher recently signed a contract worth one quarter of a billion dollars over five years.  The actors who voice The Simpson were recently asked to consider taking a pay cut from the half million they were being paid for each episode and A-list actors in Hollywood, some of whom drop by Occupy once in a blue moon, routinely make millions per flick.

How is it that so much individual success can generate so little encouragement to others and instead generates little more than a continuous stream of criticism of others who have made money? How is it that the Michael Moores, the Susan Sarandans and others like them aren’t out there telling people what a great country their country  is and helping show people how to achieve success in their lives?

There was a time when that is exactly what happened but it is increasingly clear that time has passed. Now it is considered more trendy to bite the hand that has fed you and nobody takes greater delight in reminding those who are struggling how oppressed they are, than those who have benefited from the very society they now criticize for being oppressive.

Perhaps it is because they feel guilty for their wealth although I doubt it. Perhaps it is because they have discovered their success is relatively shallow and money, while nice to have, doesn’t really provide fulfillment and they are looking for some way to be socially relevant. Or, perhaps it is because they make money from the controversy they stir up and the profile they receive from that controversy.

Perhaps they are merely condescending, showing up once or twice to throw a few words of support to the masses, voice criticism in the media and then off to Cannes.

Whatever else it may be, it is hypocritical to stand up and declare that the very freedom of opportunity that gave them their success is the same that oppresses everyone else.

Many blame the banks and corporations for taking advantage of the poor but perhaps, at the end of the day, it isn’t just them. Perhaps, at the end of the day, the poor are being used by others to generate more money for their own purposes even as they cloak those purposes in a social cause to soothe their consciences. Perhaps hypocrisy is a greater enemy to the prosperity of individuals than greed or at the end of the day, perhaps hypocrisy and greed are merely opposite sides of the same coin.

© 2011 Maggie's Bear

all rights reserved

The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others