Category Archives: Morality

Poor Bashers Tend to Be Hypocrites

I’ve now received this thing for the third time this month. It makes me vomit. Why? Read on…

This was written by a construction worker in Fort MacMurray …he sure makes a lot of sense!

Read on…

I work, they pay me.

I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.

In order to earn that pay cheque, I work on a rig site for a Fort Mac construction project. I am required to pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don’t have to pass a urine test.

Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare cheque because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand – I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their arse drinking beer and smoking dope.

Could you imagine how much money the provinces would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance cheque?

Jean Swanson is one of my heros. She works in Vancouver’s poorest neighbourhood and wrote Poor Bashing: The Politics of Exclusion, a book that challenges everyone’s assumptions about the poor, assumptions that usually justify why we won’t re-organize society to keep from continually kicking them.

The below response to the above depressingly common attitude is inspired by her exploration of the same issue in her book.

I’m just quite tired of the “don’t get me wrong, I really think we should help the poor, except if they…”

Another good [if not far better] point is that there are hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in tax cuts that go every year to people in the top 20-40% of income earners in our society who can afford and write off RRSPs, stocks, and capital investments.

We don’t ask them to present their urine or a blood sample or prove they aren’t wife/child beaters, embezzlers, speeders, j-walkers, theists, atheists, supporters of gun control or capital punishment, regular voters, hockey fans, cokeheads, neglectors of children, gamblers, pot smokers, contributors to political parties, beer/wine/spirits drinkers or various social miscreants.

We give value-free tax cuts to the well-off [like me] as long as they meet the legal requirements to get tax refunds.

I too can sure imagine how much we’d save if we did similar morality testing on those earning over $57k, double the Canadian average annual income.

The Federal Liberals: Working Very Hard to Do Nothing About the Cadman Thing

Well, by a few hours, someone beat me to this. Since its contents are virtually identical to what I was going to say, I’ll just let you bask in this absolutely spectacular commentary:

Totally Unacceptable Response from Liberals on Cadscam

Comments inserted inside the Liberal email:

The Cadman Affair

lose it dion

Dear Liberal Friend,

Over the last week we have witnessed Canadians’ already fragile trust in the Harper Government dissolve as allegations of the Conservatives’ 2005 attempt to acquire the vote of former MP Chuck Cadman come to light.

If anything, the Conservatives’ knee-jerk reaction has been consistent over the years: when in trouble, intimidate, bristle and threaten litigation.

If the allegations prove correct, this attempted transaction is an affront to the democratic process and possibly a contravention of the law.

What the heck does that mean? If the “allegations prove correct” it’s not “possibly a contravention of the law”. It IS a bribe and HAS to be an affront to the democratic process of the country, if a criminal investigation leads to a conviction in the affair also known as Cadscam.

We Liberals will keep asking for the truth on the Chuck Cadman affair, both inside and outside of the House of Commons.

If your last paragraph is any indication, those questions aren’t nearly tough enough.

Stephen Harper has acknowledged that it is his voice caught on tape admitting there were discussions regarding “financial considerations” between Conservative party officials and Mr. Cadman. Now, Mr. Harper must explain – without any of the ambiguity we have witnessed all week — what the nature of those discussions was.

We need your help to keep the Conservatives’ feet to the fire on this disturbing issue. Canadians deserve the truth, and with your financial support, Liberals like Stéphane Dion, Michael Ignatieff, Ken Dryden, Marlene Jennings and Ralph Goodale will get to the bottom of this.

No way. Did the Liberal President just ask people to pay the party if we want them to continue to get to the bottom of this? What happens if we don’t pay up? Will they stop asking questions in the House? Maybe they’ll avoid more votes? It sounds like they are asking for bribes to do their job! Asking questions in and out of the House of Commons is FREE.

Thank you for your time.


The Honourable Marie-P. (Charette) Poulin, Senator

PS. Visit to learn more about the facts concerning this very important issue.

Any why isn’t there an RCMP investigation into Cadscam yet? Did I miss the announcement of one starting? There’s an audio tape confirming the Prime Minister knew that party officials were offering Cadman replacements for “financial considerations”. That’s a BRIBE. You can’t offer a Member of Parliament financial incentives for their vote, it’s against the law. I’m completely ashamed of our country that we can let an entire week go by without formally investigating alleged criminal activity from the most powerful Canadian, caught on tape.

Maybe the new Liberal forum needs to be plagued with people asking the Liberals why they felt a donation request was a good idea in an email talking about politicians using bribery. They are turning a career ending move by Harper, into an “ethics probe”. As if Canadians could give a fig about the ethical status of politicians, it’s rarely been a reason to vote them out before. The Conservatives preach all about criminals serving the time if someone does the crime; Live by the sword, die by it!

Need Legal Aid? Get Stuffed!

“Brenner said they were wrong and told them to get stuffed.”
Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver Sun [see below]

Aside from the perverse standards of journalism at the Vancouver Sun, the above indicates that the BC Court of Appeals is not willing to contribute to a humane notion of legal aid for the resource-deprived embroiled in civil cases.

While legal aid for criminal cases was not the issue, after deep cuts across the country to legal aid for victims in civil cases, the Canadian Bar Association wanted the courts to establish a standard of justice that offends the neoliberal budget cutters that are particularly harsh in BC.

People deserving legal aid include those facing unjust eviction, mothers reeling from deadbeat dads ignoring court-ordered financial support and scores of others find themselves unable to afford effective representation in civil matters.

Of course, the rich do quite well since they can afford counsel to pursue their legal issues. Civil legal aid, however, is becoming far less civil than it deserves to be.

And in one sense, it all comes down to freedom. Political philosophers talk about negative and positive freedoms. Negative freedom refers to a way of defining freedom where individuals are free from “needless” meddling by the state, where we are not regulated and impeded in our pursuit of our liberty. Hyper-capitalists, libertarians and neoliberal governments look for ways to keep society from interfering with our god-given right to go about our business, regardless of how many people or watersheds we abuse.

Positive freedom defines freedom as a way of enabling those who are socially disempowered to have access to opportunity to function as well as those who are socially gifted: often groups like white, upper or middle class, English speaking males. Positive freedom efforts include things like affirmative action, or using tax dollars to fund legal aid for those not wealthy enough to pursue civil legal justice.

Obviously these two conceptions of freedom are mutually exclusive in their pure form. They also form a core conflict in our society: deregulate to the point where we have no society or gather together social and financial resources to empower those who are structurally vulnerable, thereby undermining the power of the economic, social and political elites.

The Court of Appeals has chosen to reject this effort to pursue positive freedom. It is not an isolated incident and it allows a neoliberal regime in our province and country to continue gutting social programs that allow people who aren’t white men to have a better shot at success or even meaningful survival.

Legal aid not a right, court rules
B.C. Appeal Court judges quash lawyers’ bid to force government to pay civil legal costs of poor people
Ian Mulgrew
Vancouver Sun

The B.C. Court of Appeal has backed B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Don Brenner’s decision to kill the Canadian Bar Association’s landmark attempt to force governments to provide adequate civil legal aid to poor people.

In a majority ruling Monday, the court agreed with the province’s senior trial court judge and said he was also quite right to assess costs against the CBA.

Susan McGrath, past president of the bar association, said she was saddened because the decision means access to justice will continue being denied to those least able to help themselves.

“We’re disappointed we continue to confront procedural hurdles trying to bring this case,” the Ontario lawyer said in an interview. “We’re going to have to study the ruling and consider our options. We had hoped the courts would have been more responsive to this novel approach. We’re not giving up the fight.”

The Appeal Court said the association failed to meet even the minimum threshold for launching such an action — a reasonable claim.

“Although the action is intended to assist low-income members of the pubic and its spirit is commendable, I do not consider that the altruistic nature of the action should be afforded much weight until at least the [bar association] has established it can meet the minimal test of disclosing a reasonable claim,” Justice Mary Saunders wrote.

Supported by Justice Peter Lowry, she quoted the Supreme Court of Canada saying there is no fundamental right to access to legal services:

“Access to legal services is fundamentally important in any free and democratic society. In some cases, it has been found essential to due process and a fair trial. But a review of the constitutional text, the jurisprudence and the history of the concept does not support the respondent’s contention that there is a broad general right to legal counsel as an aspect of, or precondition to, the rule of law.”

(Justice Allan Thackray, the third member of the appeal panel, heard arguments in the case but retired in October before the decision and did not participate in the ruling.)

In a clear and well-reasoned judgment, Justice Brenner said the bar association was the wrong group to launch such a lawsuit, and the remedy it sought was far too sweeping. (The Appeal Court didn’t rule on whether the bar association was the proper body to bring such a lawsuit because it found its arguments had been so unpersuasive that that question didn’t need to be answered.)

“Instead of considering a specific statute or a specific administrative act or expenditure for constitutional compliance, this case would ultimately require the court to define a constitutionally valid civil legal aid scheme and order its provision by the [federal and provincial governments],” Justice Brenner wrote.

For almost two decades, legal aid across Canada has been a growing concern because of government cutbacks.

Provinces have curtailed legal aid services, narrowing the types of cases they cover, raising the eligibility criteria, making it harder to qualify.

At the same time, the federal government assumes little responsibility, with the primary exception of serious criminal matters.

People often have no legal assistance even when critical issues are at stake and no government is accountable.

The legal community fears we are creating a system for the rich and stacking the deck against those without resources, yet extensive lobbying has proved useless.

In 2002, the bar association launched this lawsuit. It chose B.C. for the unique test case because of the deep, deep cuts to legal services by the Liberal government when it first took office.

“Our concern has always been access to justice,” McGrath said.

The association filed a statement of claim in June 2005, alleging the provision of civil legal aid in B.C. is inadequate and those inadequacies amount to breaches of the Constitution and international human rights conventions.

It maintained that coverage was limited, that financial eligibility guidelines excluded many poor people, and that the services provided are too restrictive.

As the voice of some 36,000 members of the country’s legal profession, the association said it was the most appropriate party to bring such a suit.

It maintained it was unreasonable to insist that poor individuals — denied legal aid in cases where they are unjustly evicted or when they are threatened about the custody of their children — be required to mount constitutional challenges themselves on a case-by-case basis.

The association wanted court-mandated civil legal aid across Canada with judges deciding what was necessary while taxpayers footed the bill.

Brenner said they were wrong and told them to get stuffed.

He said there are other ways to tackle the problem facing the poor, and like the Supreme Court of Canada, suggested individual litigants could raise their need on a case-by-case basis.

The Appeal Court agreed that this lawsuit as put forward by the association was the wrong way to proceed.

“We knew there would be setbacks,” McGrath said. “But I don’t think people without the financial resources and often without the emotional resources should be expected to mount this type of challenge and argue this case before the court. We’re not giving up.”

Wendy Yuan: The Next David Emerson for Vancouver-Kingsway

So it turns out that in the tradition of Liberal candidates in Vancouver-Kingsway, like David Emerson’s lack of commitment to the riding, the new Liberal candidate, Wendy Yuan, does not live in the riding, though her campaign claims she does.

Perhaps it was an error by anonymous correspondent on her campaign team to email me [above] with confirmation that she lives in the riding. Or maybe she’s just another inauthentic constituency “representative.”

NDP candidate Don Davies reported yesterday that she lives in Richmond and has not denied his repeated claims that she does not live in the riding:

Davies said that although Wendy Yuan, a long-time resident of Richmond, last year claimed that it’s not important for an MP to live in the riding, the Yuan campaign office now says she is a resident of Vancouver Kingsway.

According to land title records as of February 1, 2008, Ms Yuan and her husband are the registered owners of a home in Richmond. Documents further show that Ms Yuan re-mortgaged this property in April, 2007. As of February 6, 2008, there is no record that they own a home in Vancouver.

“We also searched on-line telephone and address directories. We can find no record of any residence attributed to Ms Yuan in the riding,” said Davies.

“I think Ms Yuan has some explaining to do: where does she live? Does she live in Vancouver Kingsway or not? If so, why has she kept her residence in Richmond?” Davies asked.

“Before [the last election], Ms Yuan stepped aside so Paul Martin could appoint Mr. Emerson as the candidate. Her personal reward was an appointment by the former prime minister as a representative on trade issues in Asia,” said Davies.

“[She and Emerson] both came out ahead personally, while voters who cast – or wanted to cast – their ballots in good faith were betrayed.

“Now, we see Ms Yuan trying to fool the voters into thinking she lives in Vancouver Kingsway – which is either directly untrue, or without telling them she retains her main residence in Richmond.

Meanwhile on Wendy Yuan’s website we read all sorts of feel-good statements about representative democracy.

As a Chinese Canadian woman and as an immigrant who came to Canada twenty-three years ago, I feel that Canada has given me so much and it’s high time for me to give something back to this great country of ours by serving the people and making a difference. And a great way to do this of course is to work with all of you and the residents of Vancouver Kingsway so that together we can build a more just, a more prosperous and a greener Canada.

“All of you and the residents of Vancouver Kingsway,” not all of “us.”

Yes, I am relatively new to politics, but I am ready to bring a fresh approach to the residents of Vancouver Kingsway.

Again, no mention of belonging to the community, just a group of people she will service. And it’s not that fresh approach if her style of honesty and full disclosure is similar to Emerson’s–that’s just cynical.

I am ready to listen to you and deal with the real issues and I want to prove to you that we as Liberals are here for the long haul. I believe that the Liberal Party’s principles, its core values and its vision are the means to build a stronger community in Vancouver Kingsway and indeed, a stronger Canada.

It’s too bad that the Liberals define long haul by sending in a candidate from another city. Are there no quality Liberal candidates who actually live in our riding?

My first responsibility will be to represent you and all the residents in this constituency. I will keep my promises to you and I will hold myself accountable if given the honour to work for the people of Vancouver Kingsway. As we get ready for the next election I will continue to knock on doors, engage with people, and learn more about how we can work together to address our concerns and aspirations.

Again, “this” constituency, not “our.” “Our” concerns and aspirations? Would those be the concerns of Richmond residents?

I will use my skills in international business to contribute to Canada’s success in the Pacific Rim and my experience as a working parent, an immigrant and a woman to address the issues and challenges that we face in our riding.

Well, now it’s “our” riding. Unless she can demonstrates that she lives in our riding, this is an unacceptable word.

Before I ask you for your support and for your vote, I say let me earn it first. I invite you to engage with me in our democratic process, to participate in discussions and concrete actions that will help turn a new page in Vancouver Kingsway’s diverse and growing neighbourhoods and communities.

Well, I engaged with her by asking if she lives in the riding. She says she does, but the evidence contradicts that.

When her campaign office calls me back to explain their email to me from December and try to prove to me that she lives in the riding, I’ll update this post.

And here’s the update. An email came in with an attached pdf of her Hydro bill. Her personal information was blacked out at the source. I purpled out her account number and meter number, which are none of anyone’s business anyway:

Society’s Celebrity Bloodlust Complex and Britney Spears: Part 2

In Part one I compared society’s fascination with Britney Spears to the new movie Untraceable where people visit a website to accelerate the murder of a prone victim. Now that she’s out of the psych ward, there seems to be a new level of intimacy between Britney and the “journalists” out to get the best shots of her. It’s almost as if whatever pretense there had recently been about not literally swarming and stalking her has evaporated.

These two stills from CNN video are courtesy of a media helicopter that followed her car away from the hospital. It was stopped at least twice on the road for the swarmings.

It’s hard to imagine how much of this a person can take. If she “snaps” we would get to say, “yeah, that figures” but how much of a chance does this woman have to be able to regain mental health.

It reminds me of a tunnel in Paris in the late 1990s, except this time it’s not taking place in one evening of speeding drivers, but stretched out slow motion over weeks and months, almost as if someone is storyboarding it for maximum extraction of images during her whole descent into madness.

On one level she has merely drifted from one entertainment sector to another: pop music to tabloid spectacle. Once a Disney prop, she’s now a media character. I wonder if she’s ever had much time to be a self-contained individual.

Sam Sullivan: Still Irony-Free

OK, I’m only being charitable when I say he’s free of irony.

In truth, I think he’s a scheming, narcissistic megalomaniac with the same kind of worship of his own opinions as George w.Caesar.

Below is an email I received from an employee in Vancouver’s mayor’s office today. In it, we are told not to pester city employees with our rabid desire to give money to Sam Sullivan or help him get re-elected.

That I received this email is a testament to Sam’s use of civic resources to tell [presumably] anyone who’s ever emailed that we should not use civic resources to help Sam’s campaign. I can’t stand him. I want him to get zero votes in November. I have no interest in supporting his campaign. Yet, I receive this spam…from a city official.

I call it irony, as I said, out of perhaps uncharacteristic graciousness towards our mayor. He has essentially used the City Clerk’s instruction as an excuse to campaign to anyone who has contacted him as mayor.

Essentially, this demonstrates Sullivan’s opportunism, disrespect for the proper role of civic resources, and willingness to cut whatever corner he can to get re-elected, including turning a City Clerk directive on its head.

Memo regarding political campaign inquiries

Over the past several weeks, our office has received many inquiries as to how to purchase memberships, financially contribute or become a volunteer to help support Mayor Sam Sullivan in this year’s civic election.

As noted in a recent memo from the City Clerk to all of Council, City resources are only to be used for matters directly related to civic business.

Therefore, should you wish to learn more about Mayor Sullivan’s election campaign or how to become involved, please direct your inquiries to his campaign via

Thanks for your understanding and cooperation!

Anna Lucarino
Manager of Community Relations
Office of the Mayor
City of Vancouver
Tel: (604) 873-7661
Fax: (604) 873-7685

Society’s Celebrity Bloodlust Complex and Britney Spears

Last Saturday, I sadly missed a special presentation of something called “The Fall of Britney Spears” or something like that on E! Channel, a sad commentary on our society that used to be Vancouver Island’s TV station.

I don’t like Britney Spears’ music or PR thing very much at all, but we are both parents of two children so suddenly I have a good degree of empathy for her. I’ve also always been rather concerned about celebrity microscope effect, long before the death of Princess Diana.

But this show on E! Channel was about reviewing recent events detailing Britney’s “fall.”

Though I missed the show, I thought about it every time I saw the trailer for the film Untraceable. I haven’t seen the movie yet, but it seems that one of the plot elements of the movie is that some killer fellow has set up some sort of murder machine that will kill someone at some point, a point which accelerates closer when a greater number of people visit some website. So people’s participation in the spectacle makes them complicit in a murder.

You can even try out and take part in the movie/murder/complicity spectacle on your own in an ironic, self-reflexive nod to the plot device.

It seems to me that everyone who watched that Britney Spears show on E! Channel last week [and every other act of celebrity obsession] is complicit in the struggles she is now enduring. And while we can callously wipe it all away by saying she voluntarily chose to become a celebrity, that is insufficient to excuse what truly appears to be a celebrity bloodlust complex. We like to build up people to be larger than life, but at the same time we are always looking for excuses to bring them back down to earth to make sure they aren’t better than us.

I expect sociologists have much more to say on this, and those who have seen Untraceable will be able to confirm how much this observer complicity is significant in the movie, but in the end, the movie may be a strong metaphor for our role in Britney Spears’ tribulations.

Downtown Ambassadors: Subsidizing the Thug Class

Well, it took a great deal of digging in the hopelessly inadequate free daily “newspapers” today, but it was eventually possible to get the full story on the city of Vancouver spending almost 3/4 of a million dollars to match the funding for the downtown’s Business Improvement Association’s private thug force.

The privatization-happy neoliberal Non-Partisan Association [sic]-dominated Vancouver city council finds it easier to use our money to fund a private security force than to just privatize the police. Vision City Councillor Tim Stevenson said public money should go to a public police force; the flip side is that public money should not be subsidizing a private security force accountable to the Business Improvement Association. Let them pay for their thugs to criminalize the poor.

But that makes us wonder if even that is such a good idea. In the article above, Irwin Loy “examines” the other side of the story by including Stevenson’s comment and another idea that the money should be spent helping the needy.

The real other side of the story, though, is that the Downtown Ambassadors are the thug class that Naomi Wolf is writing about in The End of America: a group of private enforcers for the business class to do more than just help tourists find the nearest Starbucks and ask the homeless to not spit in front of Roots on Robson Street.

The Downtown Ambassadors used to look like innocuous doormen from an almost swanky hotel in 1976, with garish red costumes and big hats. Today, as the picture above shows, they look like the rent-a-cops that they are, complete with red stripes down their pants. Their mandate includes tasks like “report crime and ‘quality of life’ concerns to appropriate agencies and assist in mitigating these from taking root.” Quality of life concerns have in the past been moving the homeless out of public lanes and alleys because that is too close to a business. Assisting in mitigating these from taking root is far more than reporting them to the real police. The Downtown Ambassadors have been roundly hated by the poor and their advocates for some time now.

And lackey Dave Jones explains that the real police are so professionally trained that they shouldn’t be bothered with asking those homeless to stop spitting. The flip side of that is that the Downtown Ambassadors are not so very professionally trained. And they are far from sufficiently trained to deal with the levels of mental illness among our street people. And why should they be…they aren’t being tasked with fixing that problem, just with sending them back to the Main and Hastings ghetto and off Robson and Granville.

But the rest of the story is to be found in the city’s other terrible free “newspaper” where David Eby from the Pivot Legal Society is announcing the plan to give blankets to the homeless. On those blankets are listed their rights as citizens of the country, though as the poor, their rights are being squashed by neoliberals like Lorne Mayencourt, Geoff Plant and Sam Sullivan in their plans to sanitize and criminalize the poor.

If you look carefully in the photograph you can actually read one of the rights of the homeless in our society. In distinguishing between private and public property, security guards are allowed to move people from private space, but they have no power to move people from sidewalks and alleys.

And that is the point of the whole mess. Pivot actually cares about the rights of the rapidly disenfranchised poor. The Downtown Ambassador thug class is all about tracking them to better shunt them out of the business realms.

But you had to actually read both rag “newspapers” to get the whole picture. Oh, the humanity.

Logical Absurdities: Only Anti-Government Sentiments Are Political

So, US Iraqi war veterans who oppose the political mission, though presumably they support the troops [themselves, their comrades and friends], aren’t allowed to march in a Veterans Day Parade in Long Beach.

“They do not fit the spirit of the parade,” she said. “The spirit being one of gratitude for what the veterans have done. We do not want groups of a political nature, advocating the troops’ withdrawal from Iraq.” Parade coordinators work hard to keep the event free from politics.

This is the absurd double standard that plagues people cursed with an inability to understand paradoxes.

I remember the early 1990s and how hard it was to make it through the relativist paradox of elements of post-modernism. As an early post-modern zealot, I rejected absolute truths because I rejected any truth as being able to be absolute. I was trying to embrace that concept while rejecting the arguments that have supported the human misery that resulted from absolute truths: white supremacy, genocide in the Americas, heterosexism, two millennia of imperial Christianity.

But at the same time, there is the relativist paradox that rejecting absolutes is itself an absolute.

This inability to contend with the modernist-postmodernist tension shows up in the “support our troops” nonsense, whereby anyone who rejects Canada’s presence in Afghanistan doesn’t support the troops, even though the troops didn’t make the politician send them there.

It also shows up in the more single-minded culture in the USA. If you oppose the government, you are being political. Yet it is not a political act to support it. So a Veterans Day parade is for apolitical people.

It also shows up in this surreal Flickr group, America, America!

It is hard to fathom:

About AMERICA, AMERICA! 1200+ members & growing! **** WE ARE NOW A GROUP OF 1200+ MEMBERS! AWESOME! YAY! WOW!
OUR PERMANENT THREAD IS FLAG DAY, PLEASE ALL MEMBERS POST ALL PHOTOS OF OLD GLORY IN THE “FLAG DAY” THREAD! We are building the biggest best collection of American Flag photos on Flickr!! Let’s do it together!!
Anyone who posts in any thread receives a special award and will be eligible for front page exposure!

GROUP RULES: NEW RULE, POSTING LIMIT IN POOL 1O PER DAY! Any pictures, photoart, digital art that depicts the good and positive things about America or any place that loves freedom! Photos and photoart that depict patriotism, the spirit of America, family life, and that which shows the ways God has Blessed America and the world. Please *NO POLITICS OF ANY KIND*, *NO CAMPAIGN PHOTOS FOR ANY PARTY*! NO AMERICA BASHING, NO rude or BAD LANGUAGE, and NO nudes. This is a wholesome family oriented group about America and the people who make her the greatest nation in the world.
If you have a gripe about something, write a letter to the editor at your local newspaper -THIS is NOT a forum for anger. Thanks and enjoy! Fantartsy AKA JJ

IMPORTANT NOTICE: ANYONE who blocks administrators will be banned from the group and all their photos WILL BE REMOVED!JJ/ administrator

GROUP MOTTO: FOR THOSE WHO LIVE IN OR LOVE THE IDEALS OF FREEDOM AND INDEPENDENCE FOR WHICH AMERICA STANDS. Thanks to each and every member for making this a great AMERICAN group! JJ and all the administrators and helpers!

Beyond the planes, trains and motor vehicles fossil fuel worshiping, the philosophy of the group is similarly blind to the reality that they themselves are expressing a political view of supporting the government, an act they ban by definition. I remember in the 1980s Bruce Springsteen said blind faith in your leaders or in anything will get you killed.

The good and positive things about America or any place that loves freedom, however that is defined by the group leaders. Patriotism, the spirit of America, family life [defined again I suspect by the group leaders], how God has blessed America and the world [again, defined by the group leaders]. No politics of any kind shows they have no sense that their whole group is a political expression of rigid, uncritical conformity with the government line.

And yes, America is the greatest nation in the world. I’m always wondering what criteria people use to say that. Constant overt and covert invasions and subversion of other countries for over two centuries? Largest military expenditure? Only country to use nuclear weapons on civilians? Economic imperialist supporting multi-national corporations creating global feudalism with half the world’s 6.6 billion people in the world dying on less than $2/day?

Anger and “gripe” belong in newspapers. And while they have the right to have Flickr group that shows blind support of America’s junta, saying they brook nothing political is just silly.

They also say this for a current event:

fantartsy (a group admin) says:
04 Nov 07 – YAY!!1000+ members!!** .VETERANS’ DAY THREAD, open for 2 weeks only! Post a photo of the veteran you want to honor> ANYONE FROM ANY COUNTRY may post in this “special” thread!OPEN NOW! JJ/admns

I suspect that if Iraq Veterans Against the War members try to post pictures of events that are critical of the policy in Iraq, those pictures will be removed.

Sassy Indian Squaw: Imagine, Create, Transform?

“This sexy indian costume comes with suede corsetted dress with leather fringe and matching anklet.”

It’s the “Sassy Indian Squaw” Halloween costume and shock of shocks, it is going around the internet as a symbol of offense to all sorts of people. A few ironies lurk in the background, particularly in BC.

1. Halloween Mart’s website boasts Imagine, Create and Transform as their motto. It’s hard to see how this costume accomplishes any of that.

2. For the second time this year, a local First Nation has voted to ratify a treaty with the Crown. Regardless of where you stand on the content/process of these treaties this year, the Maa-Nulth have voted to imagine, create and transform.

At least some are able to move past the past. Too bad we all can’t.

You can contact Halloween Mart here to let them know what you think of their sexy Indian squaw and her matching anklet.