Rex Murphy Hates Protesters
I initially read this and was shocked to say the least. Rex Murphy, the person who connects to all of Canada every weekend on his radio show, thinks protesters are merely violent, black masked anarchists out for their fifteen minutes of fame. The link can be found here. I found Rex to be reasonable and accurate in describing the summits as useless and the leaders as uninteresting. I also found his commentary on the expense to be necessary given the expense that the Canadian tax payer is having yanked out of their pockets. What I found distrubing was Rex's blatant maligning of protesters. He says that the spotlight will be on them and degrades protesting to a sideshow, "a circus" where people are merely looking to get fifteen seconds of fame at a time when all lenses will be focused on them. Mr Murhy is not a stupid man, so I assume he has forgotten the pepper spraying of protesters upon the orders of former Prime Minister Chretien. And he must know how much women suffered to get the vote. And certainly he must be aware of what it took for African Americans to be included in civil society. Did Rex miss that lesson, or perhaps did he call in sick for twenty years. I was not alive in those days, but I know that it took lots of protests and lots of standing up to the establishment for people to get the respect they deserved. Protesters, most of them, are not out to cause violence, wreck havok and cause hundreds of dollars in damages. It happens, however, that a few people get so caught up in their feelings, their beliefs and moral values that they lose themselves. I'm sure many of them are ashamed afterwards. This is, however, no reason to write protesters off as masked villans whose only aim is face time.
Scientology's Bris
Scientology received yet another public blow (the first of several being any appearance on TV by Tom Cruise) with the resignation of Canadian award winning producer Paul Haggis from their ranks. Mr Haggis sites Scientology's negative views regarding same sex marriage and the recent passage of Prop 8 in California (you would think Scientology would be more inclusive). Haggis was disappointed at the right wing stance the church took and urged them to take a few steps back form their position against same sex marriage. The church did not and Haggis, a member of over 30 years, tendered his resignation. Another chink in Scientology's "Xenuic" armour.
This story follows closely on the heals of recently surfaced information that the death of Jett Travolta, son of Scientologist actor John "I love Thetans" Travolta, can be attributed to the use of mineral and vitamin supplements instead of much needed medication. You see, Scientology believes that in a case where medication is necessary, say Autism, you should instead turn to more spiritual centered healing. I for one have no problem with people believing that spiritual healing helps. I for one believe it possible for people to be healed spiritually. But in Jetts case, he had suffered seizures for much of his life and was denied proper medication for his Autism on the basis that medication is looked down upon by Scientology as barbaric and evil. So the Travolta's tried homeopathic remedies to treat their son's Autism. This unwillingness to treat him effectively makes them complicit on his death. As hard as it must be to lose a child, it must be even harder knowing that you could have done something if only you hadn't believed in a pyramid scheme gone horribly wrong.
Let me be clear though. I am not anti-religious. Scientology, however, is not a religion...at least not in Canada. They have tried and failed to get religious status in Canada as well as in Europe (Germany and France said no, but Britain said okay). I have researched much about Scientology and many of their beliefs and practices are harmless. But it's the "pay for service" cultism that drives me up the wall. People have been criticising Christianity for years and still do, but we Christians (far better now then in past times I know) take it in stride. Have you tried entering a debate about Scientology with a Scientologist? You can't. Good luck!
This story follows closely on the heals of recently surfaced information that the death of Jett Travolta, son of Scientologist actor John "I love Thetans" Travolta, can be attributed to the use of mineral and vitamin supplements instead of much needed medication. You see, Scientology believes that in a case where medication is necessary, say Autism, you should instead turn to more spiritual centered healing. I for one have no problem with people believing that spiritual healing helps. I for one believe it possible for people to be healed spiritually. But in Jetts case, he had suffered seizures for much of his life and was denied proper medication for his Autism on the basis that medication is looked down upon by Scientology as barbaric and evil. So the Travolta's tried homeopathic remedies to treat their son's Autism. This unwillingness to treat him effectively makes them complicit on his death. As hard as it must be to lose a child, it must be even harder knowing that you could have done something if only you hadn't believed in a pyramid scheme gone horribly wrong.
Let me be clear though. I am not anti-religious. Scientology, however, is not a religion...at least not in Canada. They have tried and failed to get religious status in Canada as well as in Europe (Germany and France said no, but Britain said okay). I have researched much about Scientology and many of their beliefs and practices are harmless. But it's the "pay for service" cultism that drives me up the wall. People have been criticising Christianity for years and still do, but we Christians (far better now then in past times I know) take it in stride. Have you tried entering a debate about Scientology with a Scientologist? You can't. Good luck!
And the Academy Award for Most Disturbing Spectacle...
Here are the facts:
1) Roman Polanski raped a 13 year old girl (Samantha Gailey).
2) He drugged her with a combination of champagne and Quaaludes.
3) Polanski was quoted as saying “If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”
4) Samantha Gailey felt increasingly uncomfortable in the situation she had ended up in and asked several times to Polanski to stop, before Polanski performed oral sex, had intercourse and sodomy on this 13 year old girl.
5) After serving 42 days in jail, he fled to Europe, where he has citizenship in France and Poland, for fear he would be put in jail for 50 years.
6) 100 of Hollywood’s actors and directors signed a petition asking for the release of Polanski after his most recent apprehension in Switzerland.
When I put these facts together I come up with several conclusions. First, what Roman Polanski did, drugging a 13 year old girl so he could take physical advantage of her, is sadistic, disgusting and illegal in the most heinous sense. He even seems to gloat about it by pointing out that all men, apparently, want to have sex with young women. It seems to me that this is his appeal to us. He is saying “I rapped a 13 year old girl, but don’t worry, I know that you want to as well. So it’s okay.” He purposefully fled US custody so that he would not be charged and claims, with support from French “intellectuals” that as a French citizen he is free from extradition. All these facts together, and taking into account that Polanski plead guilty to his insidious crime, prove his criminal intent and motivation. Jail is where this sick person belongs; not idolized by Hollywood elites.
Which brings to the most disturbing fact that 100 people feel that Polanski, as an Academy Award winning artist, should be free from prosecution because....he’s a director? He won an award? He has money? The only way I can see this is that those 100 people who signed this petition condone rape. That may sound harsh, but to me, it seems glaring and obvious. Polanski is allowed to rap a 13 year old girl because he is wealthy and part of an elite establishment that is above the law. Every one of the signatories should be ashamed. Would you like to know some of them? Here are some names you might recognize:
Woody Allen
Darren Aronofsky
Terry Gilliam
John Landis
David Lynch
Michael Mann
Martin Scorcese
Sad really. All I know is I’m glad none of these amoral characters are in charge of a committee or a legislature. Their unethical beliefs and ideals are repugnant to say the least. Shame on them all!!!
1) Roman Polanski raped a 13 year old girl (Samantha Gailey).
2) He drugged her with a combination of champagne and Quaaludes.
3) Polanski was quoted as saying “If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”
4) Samantha Gailey felt increasingly uncomfortable in the situation she had ended up in and asked several times to Polanski to stop, before Polanski performed oral sex, had intercourse and sodomy on this 13 year old girl.
5) After serving 42 days in jail, he fled to Europe, where he has citizenship in France and Poland, for fear he would be put in jail for 50 years.
6) 100 of Hollywood’s actors and directors signed a petition asking for the release of Polanski after his most recent apprehension in Switzerland.
When I put these facts together I come up with several conclusions. First, what Roman Polanski did, drugging a 13 year old girl so he could take physical advantage of her, is sadistic, disgusting and illegal in the most heinous sense. He even seems to gloat about it by pointing out that all men, apparently, want to have sex with young women. It seems to me that this is his appeal to us. He is saying “I rapped a 13 year old girl, but don’t worry, I know that you want to as well. So it’s okay.” He purposefully fled US custody so that he would not be charged and claims, with support from French “intellectuals” that as a French citizen he is free from extradition. All these facts together, and taking into account that Polanski plead guilty to his insidious crime, prove his criminal intent and motivation. Jail is where this sick person belongs; not idolized by Hollywood elites.
Which brings to the most disturbing fact that 100 people feel that Polanski, as an Academy Award winning artist, should be free from prosecution because....he’s a director? He won an award? He has money? The only way I can see this is that those 100 people who signed this petition condone rape. That may sound harsh, but to me, it seems glaring and obvious. Polanski is allowed to rap a 13 year old girl because he is wealthy and part of an elite establishment that is above the law. Every one of the signatories should be ashamed. Would you like to know some of them? Here are some names you might recognize:
Woody Allen
Darren Aronofsky
Terry Gilliam
John Landis
David Lynch
Michael Mann
Martin Scorcese
Sad really. All I know is I’m glad none of these amoral characters are in charge of a committee or a legislature. Their unethical beliefs and ideals are repugnant to say the least. Shame on them all!!!
Still a game.
So the Liberals have brought in a non-confidence motion against the government. Congratulations Mr. Ignatieff. We now know how arrogant you are. Allow me to explain. When Ignatieff was placed ever so delicately at the helm of the "Natural Governing Party" he said he wanted to make parliament work and hold the government accountable to their actions. This started with numerous successions of voting with the government and Ignatieff looked as much the lame duck as his unfortunate predecessor Stéphane Dion. Then he decided that the best way to oppose the government was to "put the government on probation." What did that really mean? It meant that the Liberals could continue to vote with the Conservatives for many things that they actually agree with, while making it look like they were holding their nose in the process.
Then a summer goes by. All's quiet one the Liberal front. Harper is coming out with more promises then a broken hearted school boy. Ignatieff blames the media for not paying attention to him. Jack Layton...who’s that? Then suddenly, out of the darkness comes the saviour of Canada. Michael Ignatieff announces that the Conservatives time is up. That their free ride was over (did I mention this was a free ride of almost four years thanks to the "official" opposition). Now Ignatieff is our white knight on the horse of moral fortitude who tries to sell us on the "hooked on a feeling" version of Canada he thinks we will swallow. It's all gristle. He looks as weak and also, might I add, seems as dry as a dust bowl. I honestly thought for the longest time that Harper was the most emotionless politician Canada had ever elected to office. Then Ignatieff came on the scene and literally bored him out of the water.
So now, our saviour is a dry, monotonous academic who thinks we can be fooled by touchy feely grasps at Canadian virtues. Does he think we are all this stupid? He wants an election and an office he feels he deserves and all he can offer us is a leafy forest and an Aquafresh smile.
I don't often find myself agreeing with Conservatives, but I have to acknowledge their correctness in saying Canadians don't want an election. Sure, there may be a handful of crazed sycophants who get hysterical when 300 million dollars is spent on a knowable result; but I seriously doubt they are the majority. The media of course salivates at the opportunity for an election. The NDP are doing the right thing, even if it means losing some points in the polls and losing some face in the eyes of the media pundits and electorate. They got what they want anyway. Keeping this government moving is the most positive thing that can happen right now. Save an election for, oh, how about the legal limit of every four years that was promised and set by the Conservative government. You know the one I mean. The one Harper broke to put us into our most recent election.
Then a summer goes by. All's quiet one the Liberal front. Harper is coming out with more promises then a broken hearted school boy. Ignatieff blames the media for not paying attention to him. Jack Layton...who’s that? Then suddenly, out of the darkness comes the saviour of Canada. Michael Ignatieff announces that the Conservatives time is up. That their free ride was over (did I mention this was a free ride of almost four years thanks to the "official" opposition). Now Ignatieff is our white knight on the horse of moral fortitude who tries to sell us on the "hooked on a feeling" version of Canada he thinks we will swallow. It's all gristle. He looks as weak and also, might I add, seems as dry as a dust bowl. I honestly thought for the longest time that Harper was the most emotionless politician Canada had ever elected to office. Then Ignatieff came on the scene and literally bored him out of the water.
So now, our saviour is a dry, monotonous academic who thinks we can be fooled by touchy feely grasps at Canadian virtues. Does he think we are all this stupid? He wants an election and an office he feels he deserves and all he can offer us is a leafy forest and an Aquafresh smile.
I don't often find myself agreeing with Conservatives, but I have to acknowledge their correctness in saying Canadians don't want an election. Sure, there may be a handful of crazed sycophants who get hysterical when 300 million dollars is spent on a knowable result; but I seriously doubt they are the majority. The media of course salivates at the opportunity for an election. The NDP are doing the right thing, even if it means losing some points in the polls and losing some face in the eyes of the media pundits and electorate. They got what they want anyway. Keeping this government moving is the most positive thing that can happen right now. Save an election for, oh, how about the legal limit of every four years that was promised and set by the Conservative government. You know the one I mean. The one Harper broke to put us into our most recent election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
