Archive

Posts Tagged ‘President Obama’

DING DONG OSAMA BIN LADEN’S DEAD!!! MISSION FINALLY ACCOMPLISHED

George W. Bush wanted him ‘dead or alive’ and now under the Presidential Administration  of osama bin laden.

It has been 8 years since George W. Bush announced “Mission Accomplished” and now May Day will never be the same again.

President Obama is on TV right now announcing it officially. I found out about it via the Twitter account of Pete Cashmore. This was much before anyone on the major news networks had confirmed it.

People are gathered outside the White House and chanting USA! USA! USA! and were singing the American National Anthem.

I am going to head down to the US Consulate as soon as the President’s speech is done. Meet me there if you want. I hope there is a small crowd there.

osama bin laden: ROAST IN HELL YOU PIECE OF GARBAGE!

We will never forget the people you killed on that September morning in 2001.

God Bless America.

I have loved and always will love this picture of the heroes of the FDNY erecting a flag at Ground Zero

I have loved and always will love this picture of the heroes of the FDNY erecting a flag at Ground Zero

(I didn’t capitalize osama’s name anywhere in this post on purpose.)

Advertisements

A. Moodie – Will Canada Have A Black PM?

January 31, 2009 Leave a comment

In this week’s Eye Weekly playwright Andrew Moodie ponders whether or not Canada will have a black Prime Minister in his lifetime. As I read through the article I was surprised by the ridiculousness of some of Andrew Moodie’s claims and how little he based them on fact and reality.

“We just need a really good prime minister, and if they’re black or South Asian or First Nations or Chinese, all the better, but they have to be good.” Really? If the person occupying the office of PM is not white then it is better than if they were white? Isn’t that racist against white people? If I were writing that sentence it would read “We just need a really good prime minister, whatever color they are, it doesn’t matter but they have to be good” (This isn’t to say that I think Prime Minister Harper is a bad Prime Minister. I personally agree with the bulk of his policies and think he is doing a great job. But if you read the article linked above you will see that Mr Moodie doesn’t seem to agree with me)

I did an unofficial Google survey of the three political parties, looking for their diverse members of Parliament. It’s not scientific, I basically went to the websites of the three parties and opened a tab for every person of colour I could find.Hmm, when trying to evaluate multicultural diversity as represented within Canadian politics did it ever occur to you to go see what the cultural representation of all the candidates were in the last election? I think it would show a much larger proportion of multicultural representation if those numbers were looked at and not just who actually is an MP. (But in case you’re wondering I haven’t looked this up but in his article Mr Moodie doesn’t discuss percentage of the population of a culture vs the percentage of MPs of that culture in Parliament)

“…[R]unning for…prime minister is one of the most noble things a human being can do. At least that’s how Trudeau made me feel. He, much like Obama, makes serving as the leader of a nation a true calling. And much like Trudeau, he makes it look so easy, and so much damn fun…Now, of course, President Obama is a once-in-a-lifetime kind of leader.” REALLY?!?!?! Andrew Moodie what kind of garbage are you spewing? This is the most ridiculous group of statements in the entire article and I am in no way referring to what he said about Trudeau. Obama hasn’t even been the POTUS for a month and you are already defining him as a “once-in-a-lifetime kind of leader”?!?!?! HE HASN’T ACTUALLY DONE ANYTHING YET! “…[H]e makes it look so easy, so much damn fun…” I repeat, OBAMA HASN’T DONE ANYTHING YET! His administration hasn’t even been at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave for a month yet and already you know that President Obama makes being President look easy and fun? How about waiting until President Obama has been in office for a month or 6 or dare I say it a year or 2 before you make such a statement so you don’t sound like a fool. How about waiting for President Obama to have to make a tough decision or two. Ya, I suppose it was really a difficult decision as the President for Obama to tell Citigroup to drop their plan to buy a $50 million plane after they just went to the government asking for a bail out – tough call! Good decision Mr President! You make those difficult decisions look so easy because if I were in your position I don’t know what I’d do. I might even consider buying the plane for Citigroup so maybe they’d put their bail out money to better use (note my tone dripping with sarcasm here, haha)

Further, Mr Moodie fails to take a significant difference between the Canadian and American political systems into account with his wondering of the likelihood of his seeing a non-white PM-in-his-lifetime. That major difference is Term Limits: In the USA there is something called Term Limits in regard to the office of the Presidency. Since the ratification of the XXII Amendment (February 26, 1951) no person can be elected to the office of the President of the United States for more than two terms of 4 years. Canada does not have such a law and a Prime Minister’s term in office can be as long as 5 years before he/she is required to have the Governor-General ‘drop the writ’ and call an election. As such, by law the current President of the United States of America Barack Obama will not be in office after 2016 elections barring a further Constitutional Amernment whereas the current Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper could be the Prime Minister for the rest of his life as long as the people of Canada keep re-electing him and his party. In fact, the longest serving Canadian Prime Minister if you add up all his terms together was Mackenzie King who served for 22 years. The Prime Minister with the longest continual term was Wilfrid Laurier who served for 15 years 2 months and 30 days.

Lastly, we come back to the original question in the article: will 42 year old Andrew Moodie (or 27 year old Dan Levy) see a non-white person living in 24 Sussex and occupying the Office of the Prime Minister of Canada before we die? Who knows and who cares! All that should matter is that we continue to see Prime Ministers that do the best they can to serve the people of Canada and Presidents who do the best they can to serve the people of the United States of America be they man or woman, white, black, Asian, Jewish, First Nations, or purple with pink polka-dots. Whether or not someone who isn’t white becomes Prime Minister doesn’t matter. What matters is that the possibility is open to all citizens of Canada. We should not judge our society based on the results we see but rather in the methods we use.

But that’s just my $0.02, as always your comments are appreciated!

Gun Rights in the USA

January 26, 2009 Leave a comment

I was watching the first couple of minutes of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart the other day – Thursday January 22, 2009 – and he had a segment called “Gitmo’s World” where he discussed with an Elmo doll that had a gray beard the recent order by President Obama to begin the closing down of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba where Gitmo the Elmo doll is supposedly an inmate. Here is a transcript of the relevant parts of their ‘discussion’.

It begins right when Jon tells Gitmo why President Obama is closing down Guantanamo –

JON STEWART: We in America are done sacrificing civil liberties to fight the War on Terror…
GITMO: You know Gitmo and all Gitmo’s friends still want to kill you. We want to destroy your way of life.
JS: Ya, we get it, Gitmo, but with these abuses we’re doing that for you.
G: You’re not saaaafe. Don’t you want to be safe?
JS: Gitmo, there is no safe! No matter what we do there’s no guarantee of our safety. That is the price of a free society. So finally we’re gonna do what’s right!
G: I’m very scaaaaary
JS: Gitmo, this has nothing to do with you! You can’t define us! It’s about not letting fear do that!
– – Fake anthrax (really powdered sugar) filled envelope given to Jon Stewart by Gitmo – –
G: Don’t you want to snoop on everyone’s mail now?
JS: NO! We can safeguard ourselves well using smart and legal tactics.

Now you’re probably wondering to yourself about the title of this post and the first bit of subject matter and how they don’t seem to be talking about the same thing. To that, I say: PATIENCE! I’m getting there!

The Jon Stewart bit got me thinking, if those who are against the holding of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay can justify it as Jon Stewart did above that “[t]hat is the price of a free society” why don’t those same people apply this same theory to gun laws? (And now you can see where I was going! Worth the wait wasn’t it!?!?!) The people on the anti-gun side of the gun debate always say that their reasoning is that guns are made solely for killing or harming people and are therefore inherently not safe and should be banned from being owned by the average citizen (oversimplification, I know, but the point remains the same).

Isn’t the possible danger of having guns in every home and on every hip in America that wants them the price of maintaining our free society and our way of life as set up by the Founding Fathers through the Constitution? Why is it that giving Constitutional rights to people who do not necessarily deserve those rights is more important than to ensure those rights are still being afforded to the people that the Framers 100% intended to benefit from them?

To prove my point I am going to re-imagine the exchange between Gitmo and Jon Stewart only talking about crime fighting, guns and the right to bear arms.

JON STEWART: We in America are done sacrificing civil liberties to fight the War on Crime…
GITMO: You know Gitmo and all Gitmo’s criminal friends still want to harm you and rob you. We want to destroy your way of life.
JS: Ya, we get it, Gitmo, but with these abuses we’re doing that for you.
G: You’re not saaaafe. Don’t you want to be safe?
JS: Gitmo, there is no safe! No matter what we do there’s no guarantee of our safety. That is the price of a free society. So finally we’re gonna do what’s right!
G: I’m very scaaaaary
JS: Gitmo, this has nothing to do with you! You can’t define us! It’s about not letting fear do that!
– – Gitmo pulls out previously hidden, derringer and points it at Jon Stewart then admits it’s a fake – –
G: Don’t you want to snoop in everyone’s pockets and purses now and see what guns they have?
JS: NO! We can safeguard ourselves well using smart and legal tactics.

LNN: True, Jon! Not only that but Gitmo, if you thought that there was a high probability that Jon and more than 50% of the live studio audience had much larger caliber firearms with more than one shot in their magazines on their hips and in their purses don’t you think you would have thought twice before pulling out that pansy little derringer and pointing it at Jon?

Interesting stuff, huh? Especially when you consider that the people who were most against Guantanamo Bay and the Bush Administration’s methods of conducting the War on Terror were the political left (and, for the record, Jon Stewart stated what he considered himself politically to Larry King in 2000 on CNN “I think I would say I’m more of a socialist or an independent”) and the people who are most for limiting the rights guaranteed to the American people by the Second Amendment are on the same end of the political spectrum (the left). I wonder if any of the people who are both anti-gun and anti-Guantanamo (and I do not know if Jon Stewart is anti-gun but this would probably be a much better post if I did) see the amusing disparity in arguing one way for the latter but not applying it to the former.

Please note that with my last paragraph I am NOT saying every single person on the political left end of the spectrum believes the same thing. I am sure there are people who would identify themselves as being on the left who supported the Bush Administration and I am sure there are people who identify themselves as being on the left who do not support attempts to limit Second Amendment rights the same way there are people on the political right who didn’t agree with President Bush and/or are pro-gun control laws.

But that’s just my $0.02, as always your comments are appreciated!

%d bloggers like this: