duryodana.com

as well as the Bill of Rights and the Canadian Constitution.

David Chatters, (MP Athabasca), obviously the spokeman for the most moronic element of the Conservative Party wants to hobble the Supreme Court and make its decisions answerable to the Parliament and only passable if unanimous, which would be unlikely if Harper gets one of his bible thumping good ole boys in a supreme court seat.

Text of bill: C-269

David Chatters, Conservative MP for Battle River Alberta (surprise), has intruduced private members Bill C-213…

Which is described as an “Act to protect the institution of marriage” and could be called the “Marriage Act” if successful.

It’s very unlikely that it would be, but here’s where the Conservative party, and by extension Fundamentalist Christians, don’t have a flippin’ clue.

The Summary text starts like this:

“Whereas marriage has from time immemorial been recognized as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others;”

Ok, now one DOESN’T have to be a history professor to know that historically that is blatantly untrue.

While a legislated law may never have been in force allowing for same-sex marriage, there were myriad civilizations and societies that DID include polygamy and polyandry.

Historically speaking, polygamy has a greater historical “legitimacy” than does same-sex marriage.

Fundamentalists becry the horror of multiple partner marriage that could be allowed with the introduction of same-sex marriage.

any moron can see that it’s simply a smoke screen as a blatant attack on gay marriage, but at the same time even if people don’t want to accept the idea of gay marriage rights, at least get your bloody history right.

Canada is NOT the United States of America…

Canadians outside of your revivalist tents (revisionist tents, more like), Kingdom Halls and Tabernacles ARE capable of reading and rational thought.

come on guys… sheesh…

Text: C-213

At least Rob Moore, (Conservative Party member for Fundy Royal), is able to get HIS history right, if not his moral foundation in his private member bill when he says in the preamble:

“Whereas marriage has always been recognized in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”

Though it should again be pointed out that NO society’s history has only recognized male-female marriage… simply because it was never thought necessary to specify that fact…

Moore’s point is still valid though because anyone with any commonsense or good faith (not religious faith… shudder) will admit that societies in the past would never have entertained the concept.

However, societies in the past would never have allowed inter-racial marriage, civil rights for minorities or suffrage…

Using history as the base from which to build these bigotted arguments from is simply untenable.

Text: C-268

Some Liberal idiot, Paul Szabo (MP for Mississauga South), wants to amend the Candian Divorce Act to make it that couples have to go to marriage counselling before they can divorce, and presumably satisfy the counsellor that they can’t work it out.

link to bill: C-208

Imagine if a Muslim woman wants to divorce her physically abusive husband in Ontario. With their recent decision to abide by Sharia law the couple would likely get counselling from an Imam. That in itself isn’t a problem, depending on the “liberality” of the Imam… some Pakistani Imam would likely report that they shouldn’t be allowed a divorce because the husband just han’t beaten her ENOUGH.

Cripes.

no surprise there…

but watch his latest bullshit…

===

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld disclosed Thursday that he had offered President Bush (news – web sites) his resignation twice during the height of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal last year. He said he wanted the decision on his future to be placed in Bush’s hands.

“He made that decision and said he did want me to stay on,” Rumsfeld told CNN’s “Larry King Live,” according to a transcript provided by CNN before the program aired Thursday.

text of the AP story: http://story.news.yahoo.com/

===

the transcript of the interview can be read here:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0502/03/lkl.01.html

===

If you watch the actual footage of the interview, Rumsfeld clearly betrays his lie with body language.

here’s the critical part:

KING: Was there ever a time during that period when people were raising, screaming about Donald Rumsfeld, that you thought, “Maybe I ought to hang it up. Maybe I ought to — the buck stops at the top”?

RUMSFELD: You know, it does. If you’re in charge of a large organization, and something like that occurs, and of course in an organization — the problem is this kind of thing occurs in prisons across the country and across the world. And you have to know it’s going to be a possibility. And therefore, the training and the discipline and the doctrine has to be such that you anticipate that risk. And clearly, that wasn’t done to the extent it should. I mean, the fact is, Larry, I submitted my resignation to President Bush twice [eyes roll to right] during that period and told him that I felt that he ought to make the decision as to whether or not I stayed on. And he made that decision [eyes roll to right] and said he did want me to stay on.

===

Why would his eye’s rolling to the right be pertinent?

The eye movement to the right indicates an “accessing cue”, which happen when a person retrieves information that isn’t easily accessible from consciousness.

Now, in his defence (regretably), this isn’t 100% proof of a lie, it merely means that the data in the brain is not readily available. BUT when the conversation is revolving or directed towards a topic there should be no break in the mental-verbal stream, unless something has to be invented at which time the stream is broken to create the thought, inserted into the dialogue and then returned to the original stream.

likewise, if someone has been practicing or rehearsing a lie, they won’t necessarily require a noticable accessing cue to get it.

What IS telling here is that in a “freeform” (ahem) conversation with Larry King, Rumsfeld resorted to a mental-verbal stream break to “access” data that wasn’t part of his internal dialogue. In other words, he lied.

He did NOT offer to resign and Bush did NOT consider it at any point. It was bullshit.

Capital, or wealth, in all its forms remains a finite item.

Since the amount of capital is finite we can, hypothetically, reduce all the capital in the world to 200,000 units – no more, no less.

Likewise, we could reduce the world’s population to 4 units, or people.

To remove some possible problem posed by future increases of wealth, we have to acknowledge that capital increases with the population of the world. Capital is a human idea. With increase in population comes increase in capital; however, it is growth that is proportional, therefore 4 units of people to 200,000 units of capital can remain as the base value.

So, if all the capital in the world is divided equally among all individuals, each would have, let’s say, 50,000 units.

Now, if we protect the right of an individual to increase his/her wealth, then due to the fact that capital (wealth) is finite, then that wealth must come from one of the other individuals.

In other words, for person A to have 50,001 units of wealth, then the following situation MUST occur:

B: 50,000
C: 49,999
D: 50,000

Therefore, in order to protect person A’s right to increase his/her wealth, we by the very nature of wealth’s (capital) finite nature, we must take away another’s individual right to have an equal share in the world’s wealth.

A’s rights comes at the expense of C’s.

This is an intolerable reality of capitalism. Exploding the analogy we still have to say that the wealthy of the world get that wealth at the expense of others.

By the commonly accepted dictum, “Wealth creates wealth” or “You have to spend money to make money”, which proves every day to be a truth of capitalism, the inequality produced by wealth doesn’t alleviate poverty it actually increases it exponentially.

If we take a universally accepted moral (ethical) truth, like the Golden Rule – “treat others as you would have them treat you” – then we need extend this idea to the idea that everyone’s individual rights must be protected.

If every individual’s rights are protected then some other “rights” then must be censored.

For example, one individual’s (X) right to murder another (Y) MUST be made illegal because it impedes the other’s right to life.

In other words, if X exercises his/her right to kill Y, then Y’s right to live is impeded.

We could extend this idea to mean something like this. Every individual has the inherent right to do, say, believe or think anything they like – it’s their right – until that right somehow impedes the equivalent rights of another.

Every law of society should be reducible to this truth.

Murder: X’s right to kill Y, impedes Y’s right to life. Illegal.

Theft: X’s right to own Y’s object impedes Y’s original right to own that object. Illegal.

every defendable right can be like this:

Religion: X’s right to believe in that religion does not impede Y’s right to believe in that other religion or no religion at all.

Speech: X’s right to say something does not impede Y’s right to not listen.

However, we cannot say:

X’s right to increased wealth does NOT impede Y’s right to increase wealth.

X’s right to increase his/her wealth directly reduces anothers ability to increase their wealth.

Therefore, because of this logic we MUST say that capitalism is by its very nature unethical.

Does this mean that some individual rights are impeded?

Yes.

Does this mean that the individual’s rights that are impeded are ethical rights that should be freed?

No. Like murder or theft, for capitalism to work an individuals right supersedes anothers – this is wrong – again, this is intolerable.

Capitalism, far from the accepted belief in the western world today, is unethical, it is immoral.

admittedly, just for fun, but still I think wildly appropriate…

Source: http://www.bartleby.com/73/1698.html

change: width of table containing the definition screwed up the right colum