Americans are dumb says Lawrence Martin

In the eve of the first debate Globe&Mail couldn't help but unleash its anti-American dog, Lawrence Martin. In his "Has Kerry the brains to act dumb" article he asserts that Kerry should act like a simpleton in order to avoid making the same mistake as Al Gore, Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and Adlai Stevenson made before - "of thinking that knowledge is important".
Well, call me a moron but I watched the debates in 2000 shortly after I had arrived in Canada, not knowing much about American politics (i.e. I had not been brainwashed yet by the conservatives :-)) and I don't remember much about Bush's performance, though I do remember that Al Gore struck me as somewhat smug and arrogant trying to show off how smarter he was than that dumb Texan rube.
"As we all know Yugoslavia consist of Serbia and Montenegro..." He said... Yeah, yeah, take a candy good boy and go to your seat...

This is though just one side of it. I do agree with Martin that it should be an intelligent debate with the two sides clearly presenting their positions with the complexities necessary. But then I recall the last Canadian election in which Martin's liberals ( and I mean here Lawrence Martin coz he's a well known liberal faithful) launched a campaign of fear mongering against the Conservatives which sadly did work in Ontario. How intelligent was that???

That's what I don't like about Canadian political elite - the inescapable feeling of smugness and superiority towards the U.S based on... well mostly nothing.

Heather Mallick - a proud socialist...with expensive taste

Anyone who's ever read Saturday Globe knows what a moron she is. I'd leave to Bob Tarantino to vivisect her stuff at the Let It Bleed.
But apparently Ms. Mallick sometimes leaves her downtown Toronto and ventures, you'd never know, to that redneck country of ours, Alberta whereupon a fawning reporter produces an absolutely sycophantic interview with her for the Journal
(unfortunately the interview itself is behind the subsribtion wall, so you gotta trust me - I don't misqoute :-))
Talking about the apparent contridiction between her "I am a proud socialist" posturing and her expensive shopping habits she explains:

"I never felt a socialist had not to wash their hair or that when a tooth fell out they don't get it replaced. I don't think you have to wear garments made of hemp and menstrual pads made out of sand... I don't think socialism sentences you to personal impovershiment."

Well, I recall an old Soviet joke that was coined in response to a slogan
"Under socialism everything is for the Person" - yeah, we know that Person name...
I guess I know now too....

Heather Mallick - the Marie Antoinette of the Left

Fahrenheit 9/11 hits screen in Russia

I have already expressed my thoughts on Moore's flick.
To repeat the main point again I was struck by how boring and uninspiring was this, suppposedly brilliant, exercise in Bush-basing. Bush is a moron, and the root of all evil in the world?? Whatever, dude, we've heard that before countless times...
the article I just read in the St. Peterburg Times (not the one in Florida :-))is entitled Moore Film Draws Thin Audience.

I am not surprised that F 9/11 poor numbers in Russia. It's not because Russians love Dubya. Au contraire, Bush and America are dispiced and loathed in Russia on a greater level than in most of Western Europe where mass anti-Americanism is a relatively recent phenomenon. The reason why Russians don't want to see it is that Moore's take no prisoner propaganda style is nothing new to them. It's called the Black piar (that is PR) in Russian and the practice of maligning of your political opponents with little regard to the facts of logic has been in use since the 1999 parliamentary campaign.

And as in Iran, where young Iranians inadvertenly made a judgement upon their own regime, Russians make the same kind of paralles. "Can you imagine the same kind of movie about Putin? I don't think so".

Article's best line
"I fell asleep halfway through," a user named Slava wrote on Kino.ru. "It is ordinary 'black PR' for zombified people who can't think on their own."

Well said, Slava, well indeed...

Presidential elections in Ukraine - field notes

Although Ukraine's presidential race has been obviously overshadowed, to say the least, by the Bush vs. Kerry showdown those who want to know can find some coverage of it, for example in the Economist. However, it's mostly incredibly boring and requires in-depth knowledge of Ukrainian realities. This article is an exception.
Written by an American, Jake Rudnitsky, it presents the 'anthropological', eye-witnessing account of the elections, not some 'deep' pseudo-analytical shit.
Enjoy.

from today's Globe &Mail - human rights at the workplace

"human rights characteristics" - this phrase caught my eye and made me read usually skipped page of the Globe - its career section.

The article presents an experts from a Stephen Hammond book Managing Human Rights at Work: 101 Practical Tips how to Prevent Human Rights Disasters.
The above mentioned phrase was used in the context of amounts argument about 'covert discrimination'.
He writes
When people think about discrimination, they usually think about direct discrimination -- as in, "I won't hire any women."

However, discrimination can also be indirect. It's characterized by an employer with a policy that applies to everyone equally but has an undue negative impact on those with certain human rights characteristics.

Let's say your policy is, "I'll hire only people at least six feet tall." Not only does this discriminate against people under six feet, it negatively impacts women more than men.

As well, it negatively impacts men and women from regions where individuals are typically not as tall as in Canada. Height is not a protected human rights ground, but sex, ancestry and place of origin are.

But what if you need tall people for your workplace? If you can justify it as a legitimate job requirement, you are in a better position (emphasis mine). This is often referred to as a bona fide occupational requirement. If your rule lacks merit and someone challenges it, the jig is up

What's interesting about it is the vague phrase "a better position".
To my understanding it implies that if the employer can successfully argue that this or that requirement is essential for the job he's merely scored more points in the battle with the human rights industry. In other words, he may still get busted as soon as the requirement in question is deemed insignificant to the job. And the questioning would unlikely be motivated by the genuine belief that the reasoning behind the requirement are no longer valic but rather by the zelous belief in social engineering.
We've seen it already - sometime ago I read a long thread at the rabble in which an experienced firefighters complained that women are now exempt from essential tests (e.g. carry the heaviest member of your squad) in the name of promoting employment equity (which again just means at least in some cases 'fairness' trumps merit).
Which gets me to sum it up as follows - employment equity seems to be a wonderful thing, no doubt, as long as somebody else is paying for it...

Why Bush should win. Part 2

I have heard over and over again. Musician X, actor Y, or writer/sculptor/artistic performer-what have you has decided to speak out against Bush.
Something along the lines
"I hate him coz he's so stupid, a Texan rube, moron, against environment, NAACP, poor people, same sex marriage and so on and so forth."

First of all, world won't turn into a paradise overnight just because Bush's lost the elections. I daresay it would remain pretty much the same shitty place but you won't hear about it coz the Bush-bashing crowd will have moved on to another fashionable cause.

Also What's assumed here that said celebrity is so MUCH smarter, intellectual, progressive than the poor cowboy.

Really??? So the average rocker, a high school drop-out, who spent last ten years smoking dope and hanging out at 'cool' places is of course a paragon of intellectual vigour??? Gimme a break!!
That's why I love the movie "Zoolander" - "male models" (read: the celeb crowd) are presented there for what they are:
vain, vacuous, ignorant, self-absorbed pipsqueaks. They're just so PHONY...
Bush is not trying to pass for a philosopher-king, whereas they are.
You know my choice...

Why Bush should win - Bob Tarantino says it all

"...the strongest motivation to hope for a Bush victory would be for the opportunity to watch as the folks on the other side of the aisle, fueled by resentment and frustration at being beaten by a "moron", just get it all over with and tip over into pure, bug-eyed loo-hoo-hoo-nacy. Can't wait."
source: Let it Bleed

I couldn't agree more - watching Moore&Co. crowd going absolutely nuts after November 2 is going to be such a delight!

Newspeak dictionary - my entries

Well, we all know that the English language is not what it used to be just fifty years ago. As any language it does change but unfortunately most of the changes I have observed are not for better. Postmodernism and political correctness have inflicted a heavy toll of verbal casualties in the battle against common sense and clarity of speech.
There are many obvious examples but this post and probably more in the future presents what my own observations in this regard.

Ok, today's entries are

ethical dilemma - you shouldn't do it, no question! But it's so tempting coz you know you can get away with it.

alternative (newspaper, magazine) - rabidly left-wing orientation

radical (newspaper, magazine) - the same as the above but doesn't rule out violence as the means to achieve their political goals

Update: Guide to Modern Newspeak

Funny quote from a Telegraph article by Mark Steyn

Rural America is about individual liberty - where even the brokest of broke losers with no teeth can still have a few acres, a rusting trailer, a hunting licence and a "Survivors Will Be Prosecuted" sign at the foot of his drive.

the article topic is the ban on hunting in Britain

Toronto Star's definition of "terrorist"

This is the essense of a rather lenghty post by one of my favorite bloggers Bob Tarantino

In her desperate flailing to defend her fellow journalists, she finally slips the blade between their ribs:

So here's my definition of terrorism, imperfect and subjective as it is: It's violence against civilians to achieve a political end which one doesn't support or agree with.

Exactly. And, just to be clear, allow me to belabor the point: Ex. Act. Ly. That’s precisely the point, Tony: you’re completely correct in saying that for you the only “terrorist” is someone with whom you disagree.

Bob was talking about an article by a Toronto Star's promiment left-winger, Antonia Zebrias in which she rallied against the notion that media has been soft on the terrorists (as in case of Beslan) by refraining from using the term.

And let me devlop it further: it's now clear to me why the Left persist in equating Bush with Hitler and refuse point blank to see the absurdity and offensivness of such comparison.

Indeed, if one is a terrorist only because you happen to disagree with his/her motives, i.e. regardless of the nature of their actions you would spare no vitriol to smear your opponent. In a broad way, it's just another example of the pervading narcissism of modern culture - your personal stance is what matters. If you hate someone the degree of your condemnation is directly only dependant on the level of anger towards its object, nothing else.

You could say it doesn't matter but words do have meaning around the world, blood is blood and pain is pain, except in that tiny cushy corner of our planet where your typical upper-middle class limo-liberal resides.

This day will live in infamy

I have no words to describe the mayhem that transpired in Beslan after the sport hall roof had collapsed and the terrorists began to fire at the kids. The storming by the special forces that followed continued way into the evening. Well, actually on the secon thought I do know how to describe it:

UTTER CHAOS AND INFERNO.

Some details can be found here and it's too early to try to assess the situation and to answer what seems to be the main question: was the chaotic stroming the result of a tragic accident and should be blamed on the terrorists or was it another manifestation of Russia's leadership incompetency and brutal willingness to sacrifice lives of innocent people.
Gazeta.ru reports that some hostages said there had been no proper negotiations prior to the storming and and that the terrorists had tried to contact, and failed, North Ossetian officials.