Saturday, January 31, 2009

Banning "O Canada" Update

Rex Murphy has voiced his opinion over this spectacle and the comments on his article are enlightening to say the least.

The following comments indicate, to me, the desire to have no national identity in Canada. Unfortunately what these poor folks will realise too late (if ever) is that if Canada does keep our current traditions and values then they WILL be replaced by either those of a powerful neighbour (the US - oh noes!!!) or immigrant groups with more vigorous and robust traditions.
Robert Haraldson from Toronto, Canada writes: Rex: 'Our own beloved land' includes all of us, not merely those who were born in Canada. Cramming 'native land' down the throats of the millions of us who moved to Canada and acquired citizenship isn't insensitivity, it is BIGOTRY.
Auroran Bear from Montreal, Canada writes: Singing the anthem daily doesn't make you Canadian but it does encourage groupthink and tends to make people fall in line.
Green Gene from St. John's, Canada writes: Earl Anthony from Sudbury, Canada writes: I am reminded of a quote by Alexander Hamilton: 'Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.'

Earl: I stand for freedom of thought, untainted by nostalgia of others. Hefting nationalistic/patriotic training on young developing minds leaves us at risk of raising generations of young people who unquestioningly follow their leaders. Why do you think so many posters take great offense at justified criticisms of our country's history (eg. residential schools, interment of minorities, religious prejudice)? It's because these are indoctrinated individuals who don't see that Canada needs to be honest with itself about its good AND bad points. Let's give kids a fair, objective history of their country and include them. Let's not just give them pompous odes that are more fitting to the 19th century than this one, let's show them that this country can work and grow with them.

Ruth Walker from Edmonton, Canada writes: Rex Murphy has officially lost his mind.

On the basis of religious references alone, I would be loath to push O Canada down anyone's throat. The lyrics are otherwise pretty vapid.

In any case, part of the Canadian identity is that we are quietly patriotic. Public displays of patriotism are unCanadian by that convention, and most of us perceive such displays as somewhat phoney. The one exception that comes to mind is hockey games.

Love Canada, but skip the musically and lyrically questionable anthem.

This comment sums up my feelings nicely:

Bill Hopkins from London, Canada writes: I'm an immigrant to this country and, I must admit, one of the first things to strike me 40 years ago was a noticible tendency for Canadian self-flagellation. It struck me as odd that a country that had accomplished so much and yet had so much potential would waste so much time and energy denigrating itself. And it hasn't changed a lot in that regard. Still I've known many Candians who immensely proud of their country -- I guess they just don't populate these forums. None-the-less, I am very proud of my adopted country. It doesn't bother me that it is not my 'native' land. Nor does the reference to 'sons' bother me, because I understand it to have a much broader and more inclusive (dare I use that word?) meaning. And, although I not a devout Christian, I don't find the reference to God so appalling. The reason is, I guess, because I can accept that these words have their origins in the founding of the country. I am prepared to accept that in any society there are principles, such as rule by judeo-christian ethics, that are part of our history and culture and that provide the framework that makes our society work. There is a strength that comes from our past, a strength that provides the society with a cohesiveness and longevity that outlasts the time any one individual spends here. I still think Murphy's question of 'Why is being offended by O Canada more worthy, as a sentiment, than taking joy or pride in O Canada?' is the question that begs to be answered. We have now, it seems, become a nation ruled by the tyranny of the minority. It is not that the minority should be bent to the wishes of the majority. But neither should the tradition and culture of a majority be subjugated to the perceived offense of a few. We all have equal rights. It just seems that the rights of a few are now more equal than the rights of many.

Friday, January 23, 2009

A line in the sand

This makes my blood boil.

So it has finally come to this. Political correctness now prohibits the signing of our national anthem. The tyranny of the minority continues. On the complaints by a very small number of people, the bureaucracy decides to punish the majority.

"Whether it's for religious or family value reasons, this is a public education
system, it's secular and we're serving the public," he said. "Is it right or is
it fair for children who are not allowed to sing the anthem to be forced to?

I would like to see the actual objections that he has received from parents about the anthem. He's tried to gloss it over by implying that hearing the national anthem too much somehow dimishes it's importance and effect. What a crock.

If merely hearing our national anthem offends you, then perhaps you should consider moving to a country who's anthem does not trouble you as much (even if you were born here).

I'm curious how the administration would react if some students decided to sing the anthem every day outside at recess. Detentions and suspensions all around?

There are lines that shouldn't be crossed. These chuckleheads have crossed one of them.


Friday round-up

People who commit crimes sometimes learn their lesson the first time and never do it again. Some do not, such as this guy who is now on his 190th arrest. At some point the system has to figure out that slaps on the wrist aren't doing the job and maybe, just maybe some serious prison time is in order.

Fortunately for the public, his latest crime will likely result in a lengthy sentence.


Having 300 pet rats is probably not a good thing to have when a newborn infant arrives in your house. Toby Duffany thought so too but his disposal method left a little to be desired in the eyes of the local SPCA.

Hint: If you're going to get rid of rats - just let them go! Don't throw out a bunch of perfectly good aquariums and cages too.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Escape clause

Apparently, according to (Iranian) Islamic law, if you escape while you're being stoned then you're free to go with no further punishment.

Of course the potential ease of your escape depends heavily on your gender - men are buried up to their waists while women are buried up to their necks.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Nazis for Hamas

People seem to be surprised that the Aryan Guard joined the anti-Israel/pro-Hamas demonstration in Calgary.

I can't see why they are surprised. White supremecists/Nazis have the exact same agenda as Hamas - the elimination of Israel. Don't believe me? Check out the Hamas Charter.

In my opinion, the public demonstrations of mutual support between the Nazis and Hamas/Hezbolla need to increase. If Canadians know anything, they know that Nazis = bad. Maybe by having the Nazis loudly proclaiming their support for the goals of Hamas will cause Candians in general to wake up to the fact the Hamas is not a benign entity.

Link Explosion

This is down right creepy.


Everyone wants a bailout.


The current status of Detroit. It's not looking very good.

Friday, January 9, 2009

Proportional Response

Much ink, bits and voices have been wasted calling for a "proportional response" to Hamas from Israel. Of course, like all good complainers, nobody actually bothers to define what a proportional response is or what it should look like.

The Dark City now presents two fictional phone calls to the Proportional Response Police Department.

Call #1:

PRPD: Proportional Response Police Department, what is your emergency?

Woman: My crazy ex-husband is hammering on my door threatening to kill me and my infant!!!! Help!!!

PRPD: Is he armed m'am?

Woman: I don't think so...please hurry!!!

PRPD: We will dispatch a single unarmed officer to deal with this.

Woman: What??? Can't you send a whole pile of guys with tasers and guns?

PRPD: I'm sorry we can't do that...that would be a disproportionate response.

Call #2

PRPD: Proportional Response Police Department, what is your emergency?

Man: We need the SWAT team down at the university. Some crazy guy has a gun and is shooting everyone he can see!

PRPD: There's just one man? What kind of gun does he have?

Man: Yes, just one guy...he has a pistol. Holy shit he just shot someone else!

PRPD: Be on the look out for one officer with a pistol. He should be there shortly to deal with the situation.

Man: No! YOu need more than that to take this guy down!

PRPD: I'm sorry, we can't send any more officers or arm them better, that would be a disproportionate response.

I bet that sounds pretty ridiculous right?

With that in mind, I ask what is a correct, proportional response to a group of people who fire rockets and mortars from civilian areas that directly target your civilians?