Has Google Lost Its Mind?

I have to be careful what I say on this blog since its owned by Google who send Googlebots to sweep it.

But still.

They deserve every ounce of criticism and mockery for doodling Yuri Kochiyama.

Who is this broad?

A Marxist nut case.

I mean, totally.

A black supremacist Marxist who admired Osama bin Laden and a staunch supporter of the Maoist Peruvian guerrilla group Shining Path; a murderous group which killed over 30,000 civilians.

What else is knew with leftists? They love death and Che t-shirts.

I really hope this is just the decision of the doodle department; though the ignorance is somewhat disappointing if not shocking.

Know what Google needs? A strong, viable competitor. 


Joke Of The Day

"Look old man you know you can't talk like this. Just think, a few years ago you would have been shot for saying these things.' The old man trudges home. His wife seeing him empty-handed says 'Run out of meat again have they?' He says: 'It's worse than that, they've run out of bullets."

Communism is good.

Anti-Smoking Campaign: Another Example Of Why Citizens Need To Be Vigilant With Its Freedoms

Well, that was one fun slippery slope, huh?

It's now illegal to smoke in your own car if there are children present.

Of course, the first instinct that may spring to mind is, as it was for my wife, 'I'm fine with that because why should other people be uncomfortable?'

There's so much wrong with that and points how deep paternalism under the guise of protecting us runs.

Mencken once said something along the lines of that the hardest part about freedom is to defend unpopular people who say unpopular things.

Indeed, we see how unhinged we've become from language laws in Quebec to climate change cultists demanding skeptics be imprisoned to college students shrieking for 'trigger warnings'. It seems, everywhere we turn the big fat punitive thumb of the state or thoughtless, weak-minded individuals want to curb freedom of speech and expression, or worse, silence it.

And make no mistake about it. There is a war on freedom of speech. If you don't see it, you're not observing hard enough.

The key here is to understand what 'you're fine with' does to other people. As Bastiat argued, it's important to examine the unseen or unintended consequences of one's actions or policies. Only then will you *see* the impact and from there to discern if it's faulty (which is usually the case because activist public policy is often based on faulty, illiberal premises). In other words, look at the results; something we do not do very well. The *idea* - or if you prefer - the good intentions of the idea prevails over the actual performance and result.

Back in the 1980s, it was argued embarking on a smoking crusade would inevitably end up as an assault on people's civil liberties in the private sphere. The reaction, for the most part, was 'you're paranoid'.

Who's paranoid now again?

Still not armed with an actual empirical study that concludes smoking causes cancer (as well as the absurd second and third hand smoke kills bull shit), we've all but destroyed the rights of a group of people who choose to smoke. We all make choices that another may not make for we are our own moral agents.

It's none of one's business how another person runs their own private life. I have no idea how it came to be accepted that it does. This is the soft-underbelly of tyranny in a democracy.

The anti-smoking campaign is filled with deceptions, hypocrisy and good old fashioned paternalism. The deception is the language used (and let's be frank, it is indeed a foul habit) to frighten people. The hypocrisy is the government's addiction (do not excuse the pun)  to the tax revenues (as they are with alcohol and gambling which destroy more lives than smoking ever could), and the paternalism is rooted in the assumption the someone else knows better and will demand through the coerced power of the law they act on your behalf in your *best interests*. Or more cynically in this case, 'for the children'.

The vapid notion that we have a *right* to intervene because they will *clog* up the health system is retarded. First of all, the system by its own design all but ensures it will be clogged. Second, everyone is forced to pay taxes on universal health including smokers. If they paid into it, then they're free to use it; to the extent they're *free* in such a rigid system.

Never mind that whenever a product is introduced into the market that has proven to be beneficial for people who want to kick the smoking habit, the government is there to make it illegal and drive it into the black market. 

That you *believe* this is the *right* thing to do is not a reason to form policy around it.  My wife said, 'Okay, so there's no conclusive proof but do you deny it makes lungs black?' This is how deep the zealotry runs. I pointed out people drink soft drinks that *could* lead to diabetes in cases where people are vulnerable to it. Should we ban it? While not a perfect analogy it was just to illustrate in how many directions this line of thinking can go. This hit hard because she loves Pepsi.

In fact, we can make an non-exhaustive list of foods and drinks potentially harmful to us. But here's the rub. We all are made up of different genetic make ups. One size fits all where consumption is concerned is asking to unleash unintended consequences. People will always find something sinister in something. Always.

Take climate change. Notice how climate change pimps ironically use the same sort of apocalyptic language we see in the Bible. They're probably unaware of it because they've dressed up their crusade in banal phrases like 'the science is settled' nonsense.

This is the part where I contend people are full of shit. But I digress.

Again, this is the evil side of the 'common good' fallacy. I'm of the opinion the common good is useless if you have no individual freedom.

Ask anyone and they will usually tell you they believe in liberty. But there really is an easy check list to determine if one really is. If you believe in 'balancing' free speech (including hate speech laws designed by government) you have abandoned the right to say you are. The second you accept policies and laws that infringe on the right on another person, you have decided to ignore your liberty impulsed. This is the part of the 'non-aggression principle' libertarians vigorously stand by. It's a powerful concept and one that takes internal understanding you can't save everyone and that you must accept people's decisions for they alone know what's best for them - right or wrong.

On yet another somewhat lame attempt to detract from this, is the use of 'what about seat belt laws?' as if they caught you in a trap - or the so-called 'you can't shout fire in a theater' line whenever the subject of freedom of speech arises. The latter is especially galling given it's perhaps the most misunderstood legal quip where the First Amendment is concerned. In fact, I hear it so often it made me wonder if anyone actually read the case that gave birth to it.

From The Atlantic:

"...But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.

First, it's important to note U.S. v. Schenck had nothing to do with fires or theaters or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I...)

So yes there is some consistency to the extent that people who use it as proof you can't say anything you want are aligned with the wrong side of what constitutes free speech as an absolute. Again, you can't balance speech. It's impossible. If you support it, you're misguided, misinformed and in the tyranny camp. Hate speech, moreover, is an invented term that is useless, meaningless, dangerous and fascistic. If you're a person who earns their stripes and bones in this area, you're doing your part to destroy liberty.

Or as TA puts it:

"Today, despite the "crowded theater" quote's legal irrelevance, advocates of censorship have not stopped trotting it out as thefinal word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it's "worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech." Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, "the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech." 

Read more on the subject from Ken Pope.

There's not doubt, in my view, libertarians are completely correct. Not only does it presume a basic and realistic understanding of virtues and vices in human nature, but it's a optimistic one to the extent humans can and should be trusted to run their own lives free of bureaucratic intervention.

The bottom line is, once again, what this law will likely do is negatively and disproportionately hurt low income families who are more likely to smoke. What's next? A war on Pepsi and chips?

Oh, T.C.! Now you're being paranoid!

Am I now?

The Americans have a saying.  Life, liberty in the pursuit of happiness.
A key component of this cherished concept is the idea of live and let live.

We live. But apparently we have to live vicariously through what other people deem to be appropriate 'happiness.' It's all so very, er, communistic. We seem to live to bust up and restrict other people's choices. 'Ooo, smoking is soooo icky and soooo not good for you! Ban it!'

Try and say, 'coffee has been *shown* to not be healthy. Maybe we need to restrict consumption' to such people and politicians.

Just pay attention to how they will ignore you.


Letting other people live is a problem for busy bodies and this is an essential part of being free.


What Am I Missing?

Gotta keep this brief. On the run today - and most of this month. I think I have something like 60 stories backed up.


The recent budget broke all sorts of promises to various Canadians as we all know. Yet, I saw on a news ticker a couple of breathtaking quotes from Trudeau:

He said Canadians "depend on the Liberals to keep promises."

Well, maybe his fans do but I don't. But as noted in past posts, they broke a couple already.

Also this gem. The party 'reconnected' with Canadians during the campaign. Yeah. It's called being tired of Harper.

Is this guy and the party he clumsily leads for real?


Climate Change Is Bull Shit

There. I said it. I feel liberated already!

And Obama's stance is bull shit. In the long-run, the climate change cult will have been proven wrong. As they usually are mostly because they're manipulative jackasses with an agenda.

It's settled!

"The Virgin Islands attorney general has withdrawn a controversial subpoena against a prominent libertarian D.C. think tank, after being accused of bullying the group as part of a broader probe into whether ExxonMobil misled the public about global warming. 

Attorney General Claude Walker had issued the subpoena, demanding the Competitive Enterprise Institute hand over 10 years' worth of its communications related to climate change, in April.

CEI fired back with a lawsuit of its own, seeking to fine Walker for what the group called a breach of their First Amendment rights."

Bill Nye - that smug idiot - has a sadz.

Think of it for a second. Skeptics have been painstakingly producing facts on the issue of climate change quietly exposing the lies heaped on people regarding the faux-issue of our times. Yet, they're the ones being threatened with subpoenas? 


Europe Has Officially Crossed The Rubicon Into Tyranny

This article is 15 years-old and should serve as a reminder at how slowly government erodes liberty:

"The ruling stated that the commission could restrict dissent in order to "protect the rights of others" and punish individuals who "damaged the institution's image and reputation". The case has wider implications for free speech that could extend to EU citizens who do not work for the Brussels bureaucracy."


What a god damned mess Europe is. Not the the UK is in any better shape on that front, but they need to stay out of the EU. This is madness.

And this time, when things go down the inevitable shitter, I'll be damned if North America should send soldiers over because it will have all been self-induced insanity that caused their war.


Like The Conservative Ad Said: Trudeau Is Just Not Ready

Here's my take on the kerfuffle in Parliament in point form:

1 - Why did Trudeau leave his seat? Probably because he saw his assisted suicide bill dying and was frustrated by what the NDP and Conservatives were doing.

2- The defense of the Prime Minister is lame. I've read anywhere from he was 'saving democracy' (hey, why not?) to it was 'much ado about nothing'. Or we can go the false equivalence route as CTV's Barry Wilson did in his Postscript. I really don't care about those places. I mean, is he really comparing Canada to Kenya and the Ukraine? Why not, say, a comparable Western democracy? Right, doesn't fit the narrative.

What I do care about is the at the end of the day the Liberals made all sorts of fluffy noises about bringing dignity back to Parliament thus leading people to make ridiculous eye-rolling empty phrases like 'My Canada is back'.

What I care about is he lacks judgment. A person that makes this many apologies (dating back to before the election) deserves to have his judgment questioned.

What I care about was his body language that's been completely overlooked. Notice how arrogance and impetuousness got the better of him.

What I care about is the fact Harper never acted in so a poor a manner and had he done so, my God, the media and people's reactions would have been apoplectic. And we all know it.
3- Let's get to the nuts and bolts of it. On Democracy. What the NDP and Conservatives were doing is NOT anti-democratic but the very essence of it. They were using legitimate procedural options to demand debate on the bill.  The Liberals on the other hand had 4 closures to try and ram the bill through without debate. So, it looks like Trudeau was frustrated at the prospect of his bill dying. Sounds like the Liberals "assisted" in creating this incident. They sure have a funny interpretation of Canada.

Apologists for Trudeau have claimed the Tories and NDP were 'obstructing democracy'. Nonsense.  Parliamentary politics is meant to be 'oppositional' and it's the oppositions job to OPPOSE. Not compromise per se.

Nor is it "toxic".  The Rat Pack v. Mulroney, Pierre Trudeau's confrontational and authoritarian style, Dief the Chief versus Pearson - we've seen this before.

Aside from that, I detect a little level of full of shitness from liberals on this. When Harper was in power, they demanded he govern according to the '66% who didn't vote for him' and were outraged at every decision he took to preserve his government or pass bills. Yet, they cheer on the Liberal party of Canada in ramming a bill without debate. Suddenly, 66% of the people don't matter anymore.

Funny that.

4 - As noted above, in the end, this points to judgment. There's a certain misplaced cockiness that leaves me somewhat uncomfortable.

Never mind, that just five months in this is probably one of the most tumultuous and amateurish starts to leadership I've witnessed. The lies have been quite impressive. He's already failed on making Parliament more 'civil', already has a scandal with the Saudi arms deal, he lied to numerous groups in the budget and is giving every indication he can be just as 'authoritarian' as his predecessor was.

Looks like the PM is learning on the job and it shows. Maybe he needs to tone down his vainglory selfies. For if he keeps this up, there may even be a vote of non-confidence in the future.


Canada Officially Derailed; Trudeau's Temper On Display

Well, with the Liberals going on full retard mode where freedom of speech and expression are concerned with retarded hate speech laws - and quite frankly, it's not surprising given who is at the helm of this country at the moment - here's Ezra Levant before the HRC.

Notice the women's body language. Does that scream totalitarianism or what? Rolling of the eyes, crossed arms, the look of boredom. This is what inhabits the HRC cave.

Expecting professionalism I guess is just not in the cards for these commies.

Quite the pathetic display that a journalist has to go *defend* himself before such a bull shit kangaroo court.

Canada is so smug in its delusions about being a 'caring' society, it doesn't see just how backwards it has become where civil rights are concerned. 

Know how easy it is? Some asshole can take offense to something I wrote on a blog - or any blog for that matter - and the HRC can agree to listen to the case.


It's okay though. Canada is back and in good hands with Le Dauphin.

I mean, check out this confident exhibition of Parliamentary control and leadership!

Gee, imagine if Harper did that.

Like the HRC deadbeat above, notice the body language. Ooo, the misplaced sense of leadership driven by smug arrogance.

This is who the Canadians entrusted their nation to?

I can't think of a government in recent years that's gone so off the rails in just a few short months like the Liberal party of Canada has.

It has not been an impressive first half year. At all.

There's so much the CBC's Neil MacDonald can do to keep acting as the cologne to their BO.

Anyway. I'd like to say, I told you so. When a person has to apologize as many times as he has, you know they're not ready for prime time.

At some point we have to accept his impetuous and temperamental behavior is the rule rather than the exception.


Kill Bill 59

Stephanie Vallee. You're wrong. I agree with the Parti Quebecois. This is not a path we must go on. Nor do I care much that other provinces have similar laws. I happen to think they're out to lunch.

There's no legitimate way to define "hate" speech.

You just have free speech. Period.

I can easily, given my language here, find myself before a Human Rights Commission by how the state defines "hate".

We're not headed in the right direction with this.

At all.

Does Andrew Cuomo Know He's In A Monty Python Scene?

This thing about North Carolina is nutty to the end of time. Watching self-serving celebrities and politicians so well-versed in the art of lies, deception and hypocrisy lose their middling minds over the state's transgender laws is something to behold.

As noted before, celebrities already lost the credibility battle given some of them have no problem performing in the Middle-East; a modern bastion of enlightened civil rights for all people. Not to mention uber-politically correct California and its zany moronic laws have something similar on the books.

Alas, much easier to push around a small state like NC, right?

It's what bullies do. They pick a weaker opponent to push whatever it is they want.

It's no different when government gets involved. I find it grotesque that Andrew Cuomo would restrict travel for 'non-essential' things to North Carolina because in his own myopic, bullying, New York arrogance, his values (and I use the term ever so loosely) must be imposed through punitive measures against the people of NY to make a point about an issue that's none of his state's god damned business.

“In New York, we believe that all people – regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation – deserve the same rights and protections under the law,” said Governor Cuomo. “From Stonewall to marriage equality, our state has been a beacon of hope and equality for the LGBT community, and we will not stand idly by as misguided legislation replicates the discrimination of the past. As long as there is a law in North Carolina that creates the grounds for discrimination against LGBT people, I am barring non-essential state travel to that state.”

Check the steam coming out his ass and ears. Keeping wagging that finger, Andy.

Cuomo is probably better off keeping focus on Albany and making a mess of his own state.

It's funny how dipshits like these people fight to for liberty by restricting that rights of others. 

It's very much like in Quebec where in order to *promote* French, they restrict through punitive measures English.

I want you to think long and hard who are the intellectually and morally depraved here.

Now you find me a two-minute clip that captures the leitmotif of our times better than this.