Monday, 30 December 2013

Person of the Year: Ol' Man Winter

                                                    Blowing all the fools away.


That Ol' Man Winter, he must know something,
He just keeps dumping,
Mountains of snow and sleet
All over their carbon feet.

There's snowfall on the Sphinx,
Great Lakes look like rinks,
It's snowing' down Mexico way, 
It's snowing in the middle of May!  

"Science" tried to banish him,
They said his caps were vanishin'
But ask the bears and penguins:
They're back with a vengeance.

That Ol' Man Winter, he's some kind of wizard,
He makes the storm and blizzard,
While glaciers keep on forming,
And all the time it's "warming!" 

 He don't be afakin',
He don't make no prediction,
And them folk what make 'em,
They're soon science fiction.

But that Ol' Man Winter
He just keep a blowin' 
He just keep a blowin' 
Them off!

Saturday, 21 December 2013

The Case of the Accidental Orgasm

To Canada's liberal media, Beverly McLachlin may be a legal giant with her head grazing the rhetorical clouds, but as a logician she'd be right at home in Gulliver's Lilliput, tying down the great questions of the day with the specious threads of pygmy bias and petty politics. Like more than a few of the bewigged franchise, she's given to offering rather bizarre case analogies which neither the prosecution nor the press seem inclined or able to discomfit.  
      Her brief against the current law prohibiting brothels, for example, was shored up by a spurious comparison likening prostitution to riding a bicycle. Once the state decriminalizes the business of selling sex, she opines, it can no more deny a prostitute the right to "protect herself" by whoring out of her own home than it could justly deny us the right to wear a helmut while riding a bike. Case closed! ejaculated her adoring press. 
   Objection, your Honor! Is this an accurate or even a sensible parallel? True, both activities involve riding, but there the congruity ends. Riding a bike entails the risk of falling off regardless of where one rides, but with the risk obviously rising in traffic. A helmut, however, does not prevent accidents but only protects one from excessive injury in an accident. But the sex trade, goes the argument, becomes a relatively safe occupation if conducted at home or in a controlled office setting. So working at home is the "helmut" that actually prevents accidents??? No such helmut exists. So by Mclachlin's gimmicky simile the defining act of prostitution wouldn't be the bicycle ride but the accident itself. Come, come!
     A more just and apposite trope would be of a law that forbade cycling on the sidewalk. The cyclist claims that riding in the street puts her at excessive risk, but the state counters that she is putting others at risk by riding on something that was designed strictly for walking. Anyone not aware of the risk implied here is invited to ponder the prospect of seeing one's next door neighbor install a red light above her door. Case closed. Door closed.
    Of course, our risqué cyclist has the option of not riding at all, to peddle no more and join the rest of us in our pedestrian but relatively safe existence on the path of honest labor. And, as the government argued, albeit none too successfully, this is an option that society has always left open to our unfortunate women of the streets.

Tuesday, 17 December 2013

Family Matters

Before you eat James Moore for breakfast, consider: Was he not justified in assailing the ever-expanding dependency ethic in this country that starts with comparatively ample state provision of sustenance, aka welfare, for families - mostly single mothers with young children - and ends up with children, some of whom are not even in assisted families, getting breakfast AND lunch prepared for them gratis at school by strangers? What's next - government supper wagons tootling up the driveway every night? Quite honestly, what is a parent's role as parent in all of this? Being out of work is one thing, but allowing yourself to be pushed out of the picture entirely is quite another. In the most charitable light, James Moore can be seen to be actually supportive of the poor insofar as he does not want the state usurping the parent's traditionally bonding role in the personal feeding of her own children. Or is that in fact what the statists find so offensive?

There's a piece in the Asian press about the widening gulf in Vancouver between Chinese immigrants and the locals. Local Chinese, that is. Seems that the old stock of immigrants, ie, those who arrived all of ten years or so ago, resent the new breed of investor immigrants from the mainland who buy their way in and then price the homeys right out of the market. Being myself a white guy who's been long since priced right out of even renting in Vancouver, I'll refrain from interjecting into this family dispute. Suffice it to say that the ultimate cause of this immigration, which has gone unabated for forty years, is our own pathetic birth rate; at least the Asians still value children almost as much as they do real estate. And in Hong Kong it looks as though the former has long since overtaken the latter. Hongcouver, here we come!