Biker Gangs Are Not Motorcyclists

Why do all motorcyclists get tarred with the same brush as these criminal gangs? It's a topic I have touched on before.

A few years ago, there was a "biker-on-biker" mass murder near Shedden, or Dutton Ontario where my mother lives. I noted that no bikes were actually involved in the murder, or found near the scene of the murder, but the headlines still screamed "Bikers Commit Mass Murder". Why then, when everyone involved was in a car or truck, were bikes mentioned at all? Apparently, they were still a "biker" gang, because in the mind of the public the original reason for their gang membership was the ownership and love of riding motorcycles.

Now finally on the 30th of July, 2009 comes this statement under oath from a witness in the murder trial.

"Court earlier heard that men hoping to join the motorcycle club didn't actually have to own or operate motorcycles.

Bryant noted that his client, Marcelo Aravena, 33, of Winnipeg, doesn't own a motorcycle or even have a licence to ride one.

"This was a bike club with no bikes?" asked Bryant, who is in his third day of cross-examining M.H.

"Pretty much, yeah," replied M.H., who was a member of the Winnipeg Bandidos and didn't own a motorcycle himself. The trial continues."

At long last we can stop calling these folks "Bikers" and "motorcyclists" Here are some replacement labels for reporters and journalists: "alleged murderers" "gun owners" "beer tasting gangs" "drug pushers". Choose whichever is most appropriate before you pick on motorcycles.

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/673909

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Ignorance

A famous quote is "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise". It came from a poem by Thomas Gray, "Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College" 1742.

When I was younger I misunderstood what this was about. I thought it referred to a place where everybody was ignorant, and if an educated wise person went there, they would be better off shutting up about it, or they could end up in jail. Well now that I'm older, I see that's not exactly what Thomas Gray meant. He was talking about the ignorance of young people vs. wisdom of aged people. He is saying young people are happier without the wisdom that comes with old age. Not only the age related diseases, but disillusionment. It makes more sense, because everybody knows that with age comes wisdom, right?

But could my mythical country where everybody is blissfully ignorant, and intelligent people better shut up about it, actually exist? I think it might have existed at one time, even if it goes against all statistical probability. I mean what are the odds that millions of ignorant people would converge and live together at one time?

The place I'm thinking of is the southern USA during the time of slavery. Although not all the southerners believed in slavery, most did. The ones that believed in slavery did their best to make life miserable for free thinking abolitionists who spoke against it.

There are stories of Jones county, Mississippi that fought against the Confederacy, calling itself "The Free State of Jones"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_County,_Mississippi
http://www.amazon.com/State-Jones-Sally-Jenkins/dp/0385525931

The people of Jones county were obviously not blissful for their wisdom in opposing the majority of ignorant slave owners. Was ignorance bliss anywhere in the south before the civil war? If you were a southern abolitionist you would have been treated harshly, and widely regarded as ignorant. No matter how you tried to use logic and reason to defend your case against slavery, you would never win an argument, you would end up being called an idiot and deluded. Your logic would be like a tool of the devil, and your plain facts would be seen as Satan's trickery. Ugly rumours would be circulated widely about you. You would also be called a sinner against God, and a traitor to your country.

Yet one hundred and fifty years later, you would be vindicated and the entire south would have apologised for the error of their sinful and racist ways. But the wisdom against slavery did not come from the south, because the suppression of truth and wisdom was so ruthless. The more progressive ideas of equality had to come from the north, where plain truth and logic was respected. Where people were skeptical of proven liars, bigots and hypocrites. In the Northern USA, ideas of freedom and equality could be argued intelligently, and eventually people came to accept the truthful ideas of racial equality.

So it does seem like it is possible to have a significant geographical area where ignorance is in fact bliss and wisdom is a folly. Probably Thomas Gray himself never imagined such a place could ever exist.

Today, of course the southern USA has recovered, they have internationally respected Universities and colleges, free universal public education, unbiased radio and TV, unrestricted scientific research, and liberal intellectuals are welcome everywhere. People from the south have been elected as president, to serve with intelligence and wisdom that was widely admired throughout the world. What a difference a hundred or so years can make.

Propaganda: Orwell Blackwhite Doublethink

No discussion of propaganda would be complete withuot a reference to George Orwell. For example, this famous bit from the futuristic novel 1984.

The keyword here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink. Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. "

– Part II, chapter IX - chapter I of Goldstein's book

I believe that in this one paragraph, Orwell foretold the coming of the both the Internet and Fox News. For those of you who wonder how a book called 1984 could be about the future, you will just have to figure it out for yourselves. When I first read it, 1984 did seem so impossibly far into the future that almost anything could be true.

A modern example of doublethink could be taken from the 2004 election, where the man who volunteered twice for duty in Vietnam, and was a decorated war hero, was said to be a coward and a traitor by the Republican party faithful, while George W Bush, who sat out the Vietnam war in luxury, and never served in combat, was said to be the war hero.

What Orwell was saying was, if enough people believe the opposite of reality, then reality itself becomes the delusion. The lie then becomes the plain facts. This can happen with modern propaganda. If Fox news repeats often enough that Obama is responsible for the economic collapse, then anyone who denies it can qualify for a mental health checkup.

It is not enough any more to believe in and publicly state state something completely opposite to reality any more . Now to be an up-to-date "blackwhite" from the year 2009, you must also curse, misspell, and accuse people who rely on plain facts of being mindless zombies. With the anonymity and speed of of the Internet, you now can cross-post with multiple identities, misrepresenting your true agenda to gain more credibility. For example, you can claim to be a liberal on the Internet while driving your Hummer with Vote Bush bumper stickers in real life. It is not enough to merely be ignorant, but you must be proud of it. You must believe that education itself is ignorance, and that it is your God-given duty to be as ignorant of the facts as humanly possible, while continuing to spout the opinions of your political party at a pace impossible to imagine in Orwell's day.

The most frustrating irony of all this is that when all the Doublethink becomes the norm, one of the very first goals of the doublethinkers is to accuse their opponents of doublethink. Think about that (twice).

More up-to-date examples found on the Internet, of doublethink, what Orwell called blackwhite.

1. "The bible is the source of all scientific advances"
2. "Scientists have held back the advance of technology that comes from the Bible"
3. "It's the liberals who start wars, not the conservatives"
4. "Darwinists caused the holocaust"
5. "Jesus was pro-war"
6. "Big business loves saving the environment"
7. "Palestinians are stronger than Israelis, so Israel has to defend itself by any means possible"
8. "Arabs blew up the Oklahoma federal building"
9. "Liberals are intolerant, conservatives are compassionate"
10. "Black people are oppressing whites in America, so they are the true racists"
11. "I believe in Adam and Eve because I love science."

From Conservapedia, two conflicting ideas in different entries placed together for the absurdity.
"Hitler is a leftist" and "Leftists favour reduced military spending"

Classic Conservapedia definition of a liberal

"A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing. Liberalism began as a movement for individual liberties, but today is increasingly statist, and in Europe even socialistic."

Why You Point Guns in Movies, Not Real Life

There some universal conventions in the movies, if you take the time to notice them. One of those conventions involves cars and garbage cans. If you see a galvanized steel garbage can and a car in a movie, the car will crash into the garbage can. Similar to market fruit stands, whether on wheels or on a fixed position.

There is also a convention on the pointing of guns in a movie. In order to move the plot along, or to explain what is going on, Shakespeare used to do soliloquies, where the actor turns and speaks to directly to the audience. Today that is almost never done (except "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" and a few others). Instead, one character just pulls out a gun and points it at another character. Then the character with a gun either explains his or her motivation in doing whatever crazy things they have been doing, or the pointee explains their own thoughts, or both. Sometimes, in a double pointing episode, both people point the guns at each other. Sometimes it goes up to gang-pointing orgies, although those usually end with one guy breaking out in a big grin and saying something like "let's just put the guns down and do business"

Sometimes the gun pointing is kind of funny. Two big guys come in and intimidate some little guy. One big bad guy holds the little guy from behind, the big bad guy in front talks to the little guy. You would think that no gun is necessary, wouldn't you? Little guy should be intimidated enough by now. But no, big bad guy number one pulls out a huge pistol and points it directly at little guy before the talking gets serious. This is absolutely typical in the movies, but not real life.

What is the problem here? Well for one thing, would you want to be the big bad guy number 2? If Number 1 misses, you're dead. Actually, even if number one hits, that bullet is probably coming through at a slightly reduced velocity, and you are seriously injured, enough to go to hospital. And what if you don't have health coverage?

But the convention is that one person is pointing the gun, the other one has to do as told and be respectful and tell then truth. So this is a great way to wrap up a movie plot and come to a happy ending. But it is just not realistic, and it definitely plants subconscious ideas in the heads of insecure people who then rush out to buy guns, thinking that they will be able to gain the same kind of respect that the movie actors do.

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Prison_Break

Even the Mounties can Act Stupidly

A few days ago, Barack Obama committed the third all-out gaffe of his presidency. I'm counting the "clinging to their guns and religion" gaffe from the pre-presidency, Obama likes to start early.

1. Saying Republican Pennsylvanians were clinging to their Guns and religion instead of voting for jobs
2. Saying on the Jay Leno show that his bowling score was like the Special Olympics
3. Saying the cops in Cambridge Mass. acted stupidly handcuffing and arresting a professor in his own house.

Obama's words were not only well chosen, they could be Obama's version of "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall". There is no truer statement that you could possibly make, than to say there was stupidity involved. The cops did act stupidly by arresting Henry Gates. Henry Gates, a black man and Harvard professor, acted stupidly by not being subservient to the white cop when he was ordered to get out of his own home. The neighbour who actually called the cops without recognizing a neighbour, acted stupidly. The head of the Cambridge police union acted stupidly in saying Obama had disgraced his role as Commander in Chief. The press acted stupidly in asking the question in the "health care crisis" press conference. Obama acted stupidly in saying that only the cops acted stupidly. The press acted stupidly in leading with this story for the next four days, even after the police had called the incident regrettable and released the professor. The press acted stupidly in focusing in on this side issue while dropping the very important issue of "Barack Obama's Birth Certificate- is it a forgery?". More broadly, Southern Plantation owners acted stupidly in importing millions of black slaves. And I'm acting stupidly for paying any attention to this at all.

The stupidity seems to be contagious.

Back to the Harvard Professor incident, the arresting officer, Crowley, has served as an instructor for the Lowell Police Academy since 2004, teaching a course entitled "Racial Profiling". So that either tells you that he could never make a mistake himself, since he was the instructor, or it tells you how bad the other cops were.

Now lest it appear that I am US-bashing, here's how the mounties would have handled this in Canada. If you go by this story http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/03/04/bc-taser-inquiry-conspiracy.html

Looks like Henry Gates is lucky he isn't in Canada or he might be dead by now.

The stupid (probably photoshopped) picture is from the stupid website: http://www.sodahead.com/question/302767/silly-insulting-funny-stupid-cute-or-all-of-the-above/

Military History from 1867

I want to go into Jonah Goldberg's article a little more, because it contains a historical misinformation. Challenging ignorance is not a bad way to learn a little history.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/800108/posts  (the link to Jonah's Article "Bomb Canada: The Case for War)

"Canada's 1867 confederation, according to most historians, was the direct result of Canada's not-unfounded fears that the battle-hardened Union Army would turn its sights on Canada the way a still-peckish lion lazily turns on a fat gazelle."

In the words of the famous Winston Churchill in response to Mr. Hitler's threat to "wring England's neck like a chicken". Churchill said "some chicken. (prolonged applause) Some neck." That was in 1941, spoken in the Canadian parliament days after the USA joined WW2, which had actually started way back in 1939 in answer to Hitler invading Poland. Most Americans seem peculiarly unaware that this delay ever happened, and wrongly assume that America was always first to defend freedom, last one to appease.

In 1867, Canada was formed out of several British colonies in North America that Britain decided would be better administered, and more easily defended if they were united under one colonial government. Canada was a part of the British Empire, just like Alaska is part of the USA. Canada flew the flag of the British Empire, just like Alaska flies the flag of the Unites States of America. Canada would continue to fly the British flag, or ensign at least through two more world wars. So for Jonah, who mistakenly thought that picking on Canada in 1867 would be like a lion that peckishly turns to a fat gazelle, it would be more like this lion gets itself eaten for lunch.

Realistically speaking, if Canada was such easy pickings, it would be part of America today, no question about it. Canada's only serious military weakness in 1867 was that so many Canadians were actually new immigrants from America. There was a security concern for where their loyalties would lie in case of an invasion. But the Americans had tried before in 1812 (only about 50 years earlier) and it had not worked out. So the US government was not about to make another mistake, especially just after so many were killed in the Civil War.

An invasion of Canada after the Civil War was tried by the Irish-American "Fenian" militias, but the US government denied any responsibility. The Fenian raids only proved that if the USA invaded Canada officially, the US would not be able to completely secure Canada before the British Navy arrived, at which point the US would have to surrender. Remember that in 1867, the USA was much weaker than Britain. Today Canada is weaker militarily than the USA. But in 1867, it was part of the British Empire, and its flag was the Union Jack. Imagine if Canada today tried to invade Alaska, the rest of the USA would come to the rescue before we could secure it. Actually no, from what I remember the Alaska Air Force Reserve alone could beat Canada's national Air Force, so bad example. Let's say Canada invaded Point Roberts, USA then, that would be a better example. Short term we could win, but because the rest of the USA is ready to come to the rescue, the glorious invasion of Point Roberts would soon turn bad. Not to mention all the Point Roberts suicide bombers ready to die for their country. It would really be a nightmare for Canada, which is why we have never done it. Realism usually wins out over megalomania in Canada.

For those who never heard of Point Roberts, USA, use Google maps, then zoom out just a little to see how Canada might win an early advantage. Check especially the location of the Canada US border.

One more quote, but I need to stop there even though Jonah's article goes on and on with ignorance bordering on delusional.

Jeffrey Simpson, who might be called the Canadian David Broder, has even written a book entitled The Friendly Dictatorship, which sports on its cover a doctored photo of Jean Chretien in a Pinochet-style military tunic. Simpson argues not only that Chretien is the "Sun King" of Canada, but that the government itself is designed to be for all intents and purposes a secular monarchy. In Canada, the prime minister appoints the entire senate and has a level of control over members of parliament that would make Tom "The Hammer" DeLay surrender his whip. If one of Chretien's fellow Liberals fails to toe the party line, the prime minister has the power to kick him out of the party and even to refuse to ratify his election papers.

Actually, if the Prime Minister does indeed "Kick him out of the party" (by the way we have some women members too, who have indeed left their party) the member usually sits as independent, or worse yet might go to the opposition party. And this "kicked out" member still has a vote, which can now be used to defeat the Prime Minister instantly. Yes you heard it right. If the Canadian Prime Minister's government is ever defeated by even one vote on one of its bills, they have to call an election immediately. Not like in the US where you get a lame duck president vetoing congress and issuing "Signing statements" that the President does not have to follow the law that he just signed. Or some long drawn out impeachment procedure that does nothing. No, in Canada, the vote is taken and if the Prime Minister does not have at least half of them, he's out within hours.

And the senate in Canada is not like the senate in the US, it does not have any real authority, at least not that Canadians are aware of. It's more like a retirement club for senile members of parliament. A bit like in the US, where senators retire and become unelected lobbyists, except our senate doesn't even have as much influence as an American lobbyist.

Actually, I don't really expect an American to know much about how the Canadian government works. But most of them don't call our prime minister the "Sun King" and "a corrupt African state with decades of one-party rule". And by the way, the reference to Pinochet and his uniform. Pinochet was a CIA-backed Chilean dictator. The only time you will see a picture of a Canadian Prime minister in a uniform is when it is photoshopped. On the other hand, President Bush didn't need much arm twisting to prance around in a real navy flight suit, declaring Mission Accomplished, as the "Commander In Chief" of the armed forces.

And, Jonah, you might be surprised, even shocked, to find out that the Conservatives won the last two elections in Canada. Although as you said they might also be to the left of Sweden. But if you know as much about Sweden as you do about Canada, it's not that much to go on. I will go into how right wing our conservatives are in some other blog, because this could take forever. I only got to page two out of 6, and skipped stuff along the way.

Just for background, I have included a picture of the British HMS Minotaur at the top of this blog, commissioned in 1867, a large iron clad sea going battleship with 36 guns and screw propeller. At the same time,the Americans had the famous USS Monitor, an ironclad ship, shown here, with only one gun, slow moving and and hardly able to stay afloat even in small waves. The wake of the HMS Minotaur alone would have sunk the USS Monitor without a shot being fired. That sums up the difference between the US Navy and the British navy in the mid nineteenth century. Both navies of course had other ships, you might want to read more about it here.

Canada U.S. Relations Improving Apparently

Some people may nitpick at President Obama just because he is the Antichrist and he is trying to destroy America with socialism, and because he is the illegal immigrant who became president under false pretenses. Even in Canada, MacLean's Magazine had an article about how bad Obama was for Canada.

But I think we should also try to look at the silver lining of his presidency. First, gun sales are way up. If you are a gun dealer, especially in assault weaponry, you are laughing all the way to the bank (which by the way just collapsed).

Secondly, I just want to remind Canadians especially, how much the mood in America has improved towards us. We may have already forgotten the anger of the Bush years towards Canada, and I don't just mean the illegal softwood lumber tariff. Also, I am not talking about the fact that our first five Canadian casualties killed in Afghanistan were actually bombed by Americans.  (Ironic, given Jonah's argument)  Or the official snubs of the Canadian representatives in Washington, or the US ambassador to Canada lecturing us on how to be good friends to America.

Back in 2003 was a time when American rhetoric against Canada was at a high. Does anyone remember the article in the conservative "National Review" by Jonah Goldberg, "Bomb Canada: The case for war". Of course, you think, it was satire. Well except for the fact that conservatives do not have a sense of humour you could be right. In fact I did read through the article again to see if I could detect any sign of self deprecating humour, but no.

The argument seemed to be that Canada needed it's big loving brother (The USA in case you couldn't guess) to slap it around a little to stop it from being a wimp and get out there and fight for freedom. As the USA had done before, to Canada's great benefit and everlasting gratefulness in 1812.

The specific details were like this: The US Air Force would go in and bomb something like the CN Tower or an empty hockey rink, following which the Canadians would rise up en masse and demand that their government increase funding for the military, and every able bodied man would volunteer to join the armed forces. Then the USA would apologise, saying something like this. Boy, did we ever mess with the wrong people. We're so sorry, we thought you would roll over and play dead when attacked. Now that we can see how tough you are, let's be friends again and go beat up on Iraq together.

If you want to read Jonah's "Bomb Canada: The Case for War" article try this link
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/800108/posts   [Link updated on Nov 28, 2013 as the original link disappeared.]


In October 2006 Jonah finally wrote that invading Iraq was a mistake, he called it a "noble" mistake. But his attitude towards Canada didn't seem to change much. Jonah Goldberg wrote a bit of a followup about Canada in June 2006, judge for yourself whether this has a tone of humour or apology in it. It was called "Bomb Canada and behead her Prime Minister", an even less appealing title than the last one.

"Canada is arguably the most deluded industrialized nation in the world. Because elite Canadians think the U.S. is the font of the world's problems, they think being different than the U.S. and sucking up to the United Nations will buy them grace on the cheap."

Speaking of deluded, I was just thinking that this article itself symbolises how deluded the right wing extremists were and still are in the United States. They have an unshakable belief that they are the "font" of all the world's freedom and democracy, while stealing elections, toppling democratically elected governments, declaring war pre-emptively, and torturing prisoners to "get valuable information." And deluded enough to think that by "slapping people around" you gain their trust and cooperation.

You know, only the most deluded of the delusional could even dream up this fantasy, where the US bombs Canada and that wakes up the Canadians and makes them realise how much they love America, and want to fight and die for it. It is deluded because first, to think that Canadians hate America is already delusional. Canadians love America, considering our history. It's just that we are a sovereign country that does not vote in USA elections, and so we make our own policies. In fact IF we voted in the US elections, there would be no president George W. Bush, and for sure no second term for president George W. Bush. The Fundamentalist Christians would not be running the USA, because Canadian voters could tip the balance, just like having another California or another New York, except even more liberal and secular.

And secondly, the rest of the world also basically loves America despite all its flaws, and remember, we all have flaws. Only the truly delusional think they are perfect. But of course that international love diminishes as America proves itself to have delusions of world domination, involving the aforementioned wars of aggression and torture, and just plain slapping people around until they love you. If the international community turned away from America because of the war in Iraq, I can only imagine what a little bombing of Canada would do for them. How long do you think, for example, it would take for the Europeans to come up with an alternative world reserve currency?

Look, maybe there are reasons why Americans, particularly southern Americans think that slapping people around works. After all slavery seemed to work just fine base on this principle. Oops I forgot, Jonah said Canadians should stop talking about the slavery thing. Actually, Canada had its own slaves. And every time the underground railway arrived in Canada with another load of escaped American slaves, Canadian slaves hopped on board to escape Canada for the freedom of the USA. (now that is humour, because although Canada did really have slaves, very few, if any, tried to escape to the USA, because they loved our cool climate so much. That and the fact that they could only pick cotton about 2 months a year.)

And finally a little History lesson for Jonah, who by the way hates the French even more than the Canadians. He said "Canada was founded largely by loyalists who rejected America's rebelliousness toward King George.".

Jonah, this is the way Canadian loyalists see it, the Loyalists were original Americans who were driven from their homes in America by the same rebels who sided with the French against their own government. They found refuge and started over in Canada after losing everything. In Canada, these displaced once-loyal Americans intended to continue their lives in peace, called themselves Canadians and stubbornly resisted the efforts of the "Americans" to invade. If American leaders at the time knew anything about history, there probably would not have been an ill conceived invasion in 1812.

So let's rewrite that quote to "Canada was founded by loyal Americans who were driven from their own country because they refused to help the French defeat the English in the war of independence." And even that is not completely right as you still have to remember Canada was also "founded" by the French Canadians, and the Inuit and original inhabitants, and other immigrants.