"For the Good of Mankind"

After watching coverage of the "Occupy Vancouver" protest on CBC, I am disappointed.  I'm not sure I have ever seen a more one-sided news story here in Canada.  There was not a single criticism of the movement (unless lack of focus on a specific goal is one), and every person they interviewed was either at the protest or said they wanted to go, because they supported the movement.  There wasn't a hint of controversy in the story about the radical leftist politics of the movement.  But, any mere mention of the tea party here seems to be enough to incite accusations of right-wing extremism.

The main message of the "Occupy Whatever" movement seems to be that 1% of the population (what population, I'm not sure) controlls about 40% of the wealth.  So, their solution to this "problem" is to take wealth from that 1% and redistribute it to the remaining 99%.  I don't view this disparity as a problem.  If you want wealth, capitalism allows you to get it if you put in enough effort.  That is, as long as the government gets out of the way sufficiently.  So, whatever these people are demanding, doing the opposite would likely benefit them more (as long as they were willing to put in some effort).

According to the protesters, they are good people fighting evil corporations, and they're doing it "for the good of mankind."  And, after watching another biased news story on "Occupy Vancouver" on Global News, I am glad they at least mentioned an opponent to the movement, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.  According to them, the "[BC Government Employees' Union (BCGEU)] needs to 'occupy' common sense":

• Main beneficiaries of current political system are public sector unions

• BCGEU owns major equity in large, profitable multi-national corporations

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) responded today to an e-mail sent to BCGEU members across the province on Thursday encouraging them to “come out and support Occupy Vancouver.” 

The note from BCGEU president Daryl Walker says that “Union members belong to the 99 percent who are not benefiting from the current political and economic system. That message needs to be seen and heard.” 

“Walker is dead wrong,” said Jordan Bateman, CTF BC Director. “Public sector unions are provided for very generously by taxpayers, thank-you very much, and insulated from the economic uncertainties felt by those working outside the public sector. If there’s any group benefitting from the current political system, it’s public sector unions.” 

According to number released earlier this year by Statistics Canada, the average Canadian public service employee earned $1,023.20 a week in July 2011. Meanwhile, everybody else earned an average of $777.69. More than 86% of government workers have a workplace pension plan, compared to just 25.3% of private sector workers.  

“If 99% of the population is not benefitting from the current political and economic system it’s because nearly half their incomes are taken in taxes,” said Bateman. “Those taxes are largely driven by the demands of public sector unions—they want to cut everybody else’s pay to increase their own. As the president of the BC Teachers Federation said recently, teachers want BC’s income tax cuts reversed so they can increase their own pay and benefits by $2.2 billion.”  

Further, the BCGEU is a huge investor in the very corporations Mr. Walker whinges about. Three of the companies skewered in Occupy Vancouver promotional material are Royal Bank, TD Bank and ScotiaBank.  But through their pension plan, BCGEU’s members own more than $439.7 million worth of equity in those three banks alone. 

“The union foxes are hiding in the Occupy Vancouver hen house,” said Bateman. “Unions like the BCGEU invest in some of the largest corporations in the world—the very companies Occupy Vancouver so passionately disparages.”

If you ask me, these people should not be protesting corporate greed, but rather public union and government greed.  Those are the real forces behind economic inequality.

Occupy Canada

The Occupy [Insert Location] movement is coming to Canada.  Now, why can't the tea party movement come here?  It's not fair, dammit.  I guess Canada's conservatives are just too busy with their jobs and families (except for me).

Canadian organizers of the so-called Occupy movement are ramping up efforts to rally "against spiritual wickedness in high places" during a global day of action Saturday that now has the backing of at least a couple of major unions [unsurprisingly], and has put police and businesses on alert.

Thousands in at least 15 Canadian cities — from Vancouver to St. John's — were holding meetings Friday to complete plans for the weekend marches, sit-ins and other efforts to decry what the movement says is an uneven distribution of wealth caused by government policies favouring big business.

 So its communism they're demanding.

"I'm encouraged to see citizens rightfully stand up and take action against what are gross injustices in our economic and social structures," said CAW national president Ken Lewenza in a release Friday.

I thought that's what the tea party was for.

"It's time for people to take ownership of their streets, their economy and fight back against corporations and governments championing right-wing, neo-liberal policies that support a select few, at the expense of the majority."

I thought that's what left-wing policies did.

Canadian police units, notably in Toronto and Vancouver where the G20 protests in June 2010 and hockey riots this past June, respectively, have led to violence and arrests, have for days been planning their strategies for handling the Occupy protests. 

Police officials have been as tight-lipped about how they'll handle Saturday's mass events as the Occupy Canada organizers, who keep a low profile and let their Facebook, Twitter and other social networking efforts drive their planning.

No matter what happens, I predict there will be complaints of police brutality.  There always seem to be when left-wing protests are concerned.  However, when a large, unruly crowd is threatening the safety of people and businesses, the police should be able to do whatever they have to (with reasonable limits, of course), to contain that crowd and prevent any further escalation of violence.  If the Stanley Cup riots in Vancouver are any indication, hooligans will use any excuse to create further disorder.

Tom Caldwell, chairman and CEO of Caldwell Securities Ltd., which has offices in Toronto and New York City, also isn't exactly sure about the Occupy movement's goals.

"The medium is the protest but what is the message?" he said.

I think the goal of the movement is communism, or at least socialism.  At the very least, it is an excuse for professional protesters to protest over nothing in particular.  I see this movement basically as a manifestation of an emotion-driven desire to turn North America into a left-wing "utopia".  But, with powerful American politicians that are sympathetic to the movement, such as Barack Obama, who knows how much influence this movement will have.  Perhaps Obama will take the movement as America wanting socialism, and I believe he is delusional enough to think that.  Maybe he will enact far-left policies in an attempt to appease the participants of this movement, thinking it will gain him votes.  Or maybe he will simply use this movement as an excuse to enact far-left policies.  Fortunately the Republicans control the House of Representatives.  I wonder what creative (/sarc) ad hominems Obama, the Democrats, and other liberals will use for the Republicans in this hypothetical situation.        

Ugly Canadianism

I came across this old GayPatriot post and I was so disgusted that I had to say something.  That post quotes an article from Avocate.com from 2006 (the original source is no longer availabe).    

As a Canadian, I want to apologize. For many years, I looked down on you. I sniffed at your capital punishment, right-leaning government, and massive military. I would comfort myself with the sense that I was better than you. After all, I’m a Canadian.

But all that changed on January 23 when Canada elected a conservative government with ties to far-right organizations. Boy, was I wrong!

Our sense of superiority grew in 2000 when you elected George W. Bush. With that came talk of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, the refusal to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol, and last, but certainly not least, the invasion of Iraq. In those six years, I have never felt happier or more proud to be Canadian. And I rubbed it in every chance I got: Whenever I would bump into one of you Americans at a cocktail party, it was attitude, attitude, attitude.

I’m sorry for that—I really am. There can be no more smug attitudes. No more sneering self-righteousness. No jokes about your fascist state. Welcome to the new Canada: Our prime minister, Stephen Harper, says he is opposed to same-sex marriage and is willing to appease his base by reopening the issue—meaning a potential rolling back of gay rights in our country. And he has promised to withdraw Canada’s support for the Kyoto Protocol. Worst of all, when Bush set out to invade Iraq, Harper was the only party leader in parliament to rise and say we should be alongside the United States in that unjust and immoral war.

I have several things to say about this appalling piece.  Firstly, not all us Canadians are like this.  In fact, most that I have met aren't.  However, there is a prevailing attitude that I have noticed among Canadians that Canadians are superior to Americans.  It's not usually hostile in nature, but it's disturbing nonetheless.  Secondly, this guy is clearly a piece of work.  It is quite common for a liberal to hold conservatism or centre-right politics as inferior, just because liberals are "enlightened" (or something).  There is no logical basis for this sense of superiority.  And this guy perfectly demonstrates their mindset.  He simply dismisses "capital punisment," a "right-wing government," and a "massive military" as things to look down upon.  His attitude is unsurprising given "enlightened" liberals' tendency to view those things as barbaric.  He doesn't bother do give any reason why those things are inferior.  They just are.  And this seems to be a typical tactic used by leftists.  After all, they are the smart, enlightened intellectuals, while conservatives are dumb, old-fashioned bible- and gun-clingers.  That is the universal and absolute truth.  No amount of facts or evidence can contradict that truth.

Of course, not all leftists are adhere to that view.  There are many reasonable ones, as I have acknowledged many times before.

But this guy shows how some liberals think.  Anything conservative is to be looked down upon, from the comfort of knowing you are better simply because you can feel "warm and fuzzy" about your liberal views; and that you are compassionate and espouse love and tolerance.  How ironic that your view of conservatives is based on misrepresentation, and that your lack of tolerance for opposing viewpoints is exactly what you purport to be opposing.  I don't know how many on the left would agree with this guy, so I can only speak to him.  But I am sick of giving liberals the benefit of the doubt.  Based on my experience alone, while there are reasonable liberals that will make an effort to tolerate conservatives, most of them won't.  In this case, it is up to the liberals to show their reasonableness.

As for his accusations of the Conservative Government's "ties to far right organizations," I have never heard anything about this.  But, I am not going to look into it because, according to this guy, the USA's Republican Party would probably be considered a "far right organization," even pre-tea party.  From what I can tell, it's just basically meaningless rhetoric attempting to dismiss conservatives by labelling them as extremists, an often used tactic.  It's the same thing with his use of "fascist," which any grade 10 social studies student should be able to tell him he is using incorrectly.  His lack of understanding of the meaning of a simple political term should discredit his whole article, but it doesn't because his obvious irrationality already does that.  

Another Example of Leftist Ugliness and Hypocrisy

Strangely, prior to yesterday, I had not heard of the "Occupy Wall Street" protests.  For the benefit of others who apparently live under metaphorical rocks, "Occupy Wall Street" is a leftist grassroots movement opposing "corporate greed" and "economic inequality."  With the rightist Tea Party movement in the spotlight for the past couple years or so, many people are comparing the two grassroots movements.  While OWS is protesting "corporate greed" and "economic inequality," the Tea Party is protesting government greed and economic inequality.  The reason I put the object of OWS in quotation marks and not the object of the Tea Party is that I believe in the Tea Party's cause, unlike that of OWS.  Corporations have every right to be greedy, so long as they are in compliance with the law.  I do not believe the government has this right, as its purpose is nothing more than to serve its constituents.  And, economic inequality, as I see it, is caused by the redistribution of wealth.

While the fundamental difference between the two movements is the political ideology that motivates them, another key difference is the method of protest.  Tea Party protests, in general, are peaceful and law-abiding (or so I hear).  OWS protests, on the other hand, are not.  Twenty-three OWS protesters were arrested yesterday in New York City for disorderly conduct, only a few days after a much larger arrest (see quotation below).  I can't remember ever hearing of anyone arrested at Tea Party protests, nor can I find any evidence in a quick Google search (I do, however, find links about anti-Tea Party protesters being arrested).  Keep in mind that the Tea Party movement is several years old, compared to the fledgeling OWS movement.  My Google search did result in me finding this fantastic article, however.  Here is an excerpt (emphasis added):  

One aspect of the Occupy Wall Street and other leftist activism that is a definitive divergence with the tea party movement is disruptive behavior.

On October 1, over 700 Occupy Wall Street protesters were arrested — mostly for disorderly conduct — during a march across the Brooklyn Bridge.  Despite two other peaceful marches across the bridge by other groups earlier that day, the Occupy Wall Street crowd couldn’t resist blocking traffic and scuffling with police. 

When not under arrest (approximately 100 other arrests occurred over the weeks of the protest), the Occupy Wall Street crowd is actually occupying the privately-owned Zuccotti Park, whose owners are working with city officials on plans to return it “to its intended purpose.” 

This rowdy attitude of the radical left is something that, by mistake or design, is grossly unreported in the media.  As the Tea Party must fend off allegations of being violent and racist, leftist protests that are unruly don’t get similar coverage. 

I’ve been active in the Tea Party movement since 2009.  As a black woman, I define the movement’s political diversity and have always been quick to defend its inclusiveness against those who would try to slur it with racist accusations.
I have had the amazing opportunity to meet thousands of freedom-loving Americans who are involved in the movement on their own time and these individuals are sincere in their efforts to reign in our government gone wild by holding our elected representatives accountable. 

As a frequent speaker at Tea Party events nationwide, I’ve never seen the same behavior as described during Occupy Wall Street’s Brooklyn Bridge demonstration.  Tea Party activists, in my experience, police themselves.  Additionally, I’ve never been to a rally in which the grounds weren’t as clean or cleaner than when the first activist arrived. 

Doing a Google search of “tea party activist” and “arrest” brings up nothing of merit.  On the first page, I found three articles about people described as tea party activists, but the arrests were unrelated to rallies. 

Another article, about the demonstrations outside the U.S. Capitol Building on the weekend of the Obamacare vote in the House, reports one man — one single person — was detained after being accused of spitting on a congressman.  But that person was immediately released, and no one has come forward to legitimize the claim and collect conservative Andrew Breitbart’s $100,000 reward for providing proof. 

Furthermore, Teamsters president Jimmy Hoffa told people waiting to see President Obama speak at a Labor Day rally that they need to “take these [Tea Party] son of a bitches out.”  And there was a January 30 rally in Rancho Mirage, California in which progressive protesters, many of whom were attending a nearby conference sponsored by Common Cause, were caught on video saying they wanted to “torture” and “hang” Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. 

Salacious allegations against the tea party will get more coverage than actual law-breaking by the left.

It is evident that leftist protests embody the negative attributes that conservative protests are wrongly accused of embodying.  Not that you would ever be able to tell by watching the news, though.  Do we have enough proof now that many leftists are hypocrites?

And, a final note: this is not meant to apply to all leftists.  Only the crazy ones.  

Showing a Good Example

Dick Cheney received quite the reception in Vancouver last night.  Promoting his book at a $500-per-ticket event, attendees were welcomed by a perpetually angry crowd demanding Cheney be arrested for war crimes (with no evidence, of course).  In an ironic twist, these people, supposedly protesting violence, managed to knock several people attending the event over, despite a large police presence and a chain of police officers separating the protesters from the pathway the attendees used to enter the event. 

I’m convinced that these people travel around looking for things to protest.  And these protests are ugly; they’re not the typical protests where people stand still peacefully holding signs.  These people get in your face, and loudly yell very judgemental things like “do you have no moral compass?”  By now, it should be quite evident that the title of this post is sarcastic.  These people, liberals, of course, do not show a good example.  This kind of behaviour makes all liberals seem crazy, but I’m sure these people represent only a small portion of the liberal population.  So, I ask reasonable liberals to distance themselves from these lunatics and denounce their behaviour.  Demonstrating that you resort to questionable tactics to make your point is not a good way to get people on your side, in my opinion.  In fact, I would bet that average people dismiss the opinions of radicals. 

While I’m on the topic of protesting, I will address the protests over the oil pipeline that is proposed to be built between Hardisty, Alberta and Houston, Texas.  Some of the protesters in this case, as well, resorted to questionable tactics to get their point across.  Acts of defiance, with the intent of getting arrested, just to make a point, does not, in my opinion, make any point other than “I’m mentally ill.”  What sensible person would actually volunteer to be arrested for naught but symbolism?  Not one, I reckon.  There are legitimate concerns about this pipeline, including the potential (but unlikely) risk of the contamination of the Ogallala Aquifer, which was, in fact, raised by the Republican governor of Nebraska.  To me, it seems counter-productive to protest in such a way, because these people are radicals, and their actions do not reflect well on their credibility.  As I said before, average people likely do not take their views very seriously. 

Which is also a reason why I believe the Tea Party movement has gained such momentum.  Not only does the Tea Party represent a common sense approach to solving the USA’s financial problems, but Tea Party protests are also civil (despite their depiction in the increasingly irrelevant mainstream media).  So, the Tea Party movement, unlike certain liberal protesters, are showing a good example.  

An Appalling Case of Progressivism

This is precisely the reason I am a proponent of socially conservative values (h/t GayPatriot):

Officials in Basel [Switzerland] have agreed to rename the “sex box” after receiving some 3,000 letters of protest from parents angered by the controversial trove ofwooden penises and fabric vaginas set to be used in a new sex education programme for playschool and primary school kids. 

Christoph Eymann, Basel education minister and member of the liberal democrat party (LDP), responded to parent’s protests in an interview with SonntagsBlick. 

“It was no doubt stupid to call it a ’sex box’ – we will change that. But we will stick to our goal: to get across to children that sexuality is something natural. Without forcing anything upon them or taking anything away from their parents,“ he said. 

Many parents say they do not understand why sex education needs to be taught to children as young as four.

I can see the point of educating teens about sex, but four year olds?

Eymann said he understood that one line in the programme, “touching can be enjoyed heartily”, could be misconstrued, but insisted: “It is not about ‘touch me, feel me’. We want to tell the children that there is contact that they may find pleasurable, but some that they should say ’no’ to. Kids can unfortunately can become victims of sexual violence already at playschool age." 

Eymann said he would prefer if sex education was taught to children at home but argued that education officials needed to respond to the realities of today. 

“We currently live in an oversexualised society. There is uncontrolled distribution of pornographic material that can reach young children. Some primary school children know the TV schedule until 2am. We would like to offer these children firm support, which is often not available in the family. The box is only an aid. I trust the teachers to approach the material with care.”

Yes, we do live in an oversexualized society.  However, making it further oversexualized is not the solution.  And, this is perhaps the worst part:

Some parents have called for their children to be exempted from sex education. Eymann says he is strictly against exemptions, although he is aware this will not make him many friends: 

“Primary school may be the only big audience that our society has. The shared values that it teaches are very important. I would definitely like to keep this. The explanatory lesson can be portrayed in a way that doesn’t offend“, he said.

This is one of those things that would make me check the date if it weren't August (in case it were April 1st).  Still, I have a difficult time thinking any sane person would actually think this is the solution to anything.  While I am opposed to government intervention into the actions of people in private (as long as they are not causing harm to anyone), it is clear to me that children, especially children this young, are not rational, and cannot understand sex and what its significance is.  Sex is a natural thing, but, it has the capability of causing problems when it is not understood rationally.  I would prefer to live in a society where sex is not out in the open, where it is private.

In addition, it is totally unacceptable for parents not to be able to pull their children out of this program.

NOTE: I almost titled this post "Mental Porn for Pedophiles" but I decided not to.

Self-Loathing, etc.

One of the most common points made by the gay left as to their argument that gay people cannot be conservative that I have seen is this: liberals are more supportive of gay rights than conservatives.  In general, that is true.  However, their argument is based upon a false premise.  If this is the nature of their argument, that since liberals are more supportive of gay rights than conservatives, that gays should be liberal and conservative gays are self-loathing, then they make a flawed assumption.  And that assumption is that gay people are one-dimensional, or that they have no other qualities, or perhaps their sexual orientation is the most important aspect of them.  While that may be true for some people, it certainly isn't for others.  For them, it seems, gay rights issues trump all others.  So, it follows that, since liberals are better on gay rights issues, it doesn't make any sense for a gay person not to be a liberal.  However, since there exist homosexuals whose sexual orientation is not their defining aspect, other issues may be more important to them.  In my view, homosexual people are basically equal to heterosexuals in terms of what rights they have.  So, for me, gay rights issues are unimportant.  In fact, I will go even further and say that I oppose gay rights as they are generally defined by the left.  That does not hold true for every issue, but it does for most.  If you are wondering how a homosexual can hold that view without hating himself*, then you are clearly unfamiliar with the concept of objectivity.  I should be able to objectively analyze anything in which I am personally invested just as effectively as something in which I am not.  When analyzing anything, I use a set of consistent values or principles, and I do it objectively.  So, what is so self-hating about that?  Yet another common false assumption that is made by those on the gay left is that LGBT people are all a unified bloc.  Of course, this is plain absurd.  For one thing, I am conservative first and gay last.  Another false assumption is that, because I am a homosexual, I can be assumed to have other characteristics that aren't necessarily related to sexual orientation, or that the homosexual population is not diverse to any significant extent.  For example, I would not be surprised if some gay person questioned whether I was, in fact, gay, based on my other characteristics.  Despite the fact that I am unquestionably homosexual, I am prudish, I don't listen to Lady Gaga, and not only do I not know the first thing about fashion, I hold it in contempt.  Those are just a few examples.  

No further assumptions should be drawn about me based on the one piece of knowledge that I am gay.  I consider myself fairly socially (or more accurately, culturally) conservative.  And apparently, social conservatism and homosexuality (not to mention agnosticism, but that is a totally separate issue) are mutually exclusive.  If you accept my previous arguments, however, this is ridiculous.  I may not agree with social conservatives on some issues, but I do agree with them on most.  Most issues have nothing to do with sexuality whatsoever.  

My hypothesis on the gay left's resentment of the gay right is that it is based upon false assumptions, about both homosexuals and conservatives.  If you have an accurate understanding of both, and use logic in your reasoning, it should not be difficult to accept that homosexuals can be conservative.  Furthermore, in my case, it wouldn't make any sense for me to adopt liberalism/progressivism as my political ideology, based on my other characteristics.

*Please note that opposing "gay rights" is not the same as wishing homosexuals less rights than others; I do not believe in granting homosexuals special rights.  I do, in fact, favor equality, I just favor equality in its actual definition, not as it is defined by the left.

UPDATE:  Please see also this post.  

American Politics vs. Canadian Politics

Here is why I am more interested in American politics than I am in Canadian politics:

1. There is over a year until the next American federal election, and there is already a massive amount of interest.  The Ames straw poll and Rick Perry's presidential bid even made the news in Canada.  Having said that, federal elections in Canada have been frequent during the past decade.  This has provided more excitement, but it has also caused "election fatigue."  
2. It can be frustrating being as conservative as I am in Canada.  Canadian conservatives tend to be "progressive conservatives," which I assume are so referred to so as to appear more palatable to the general Canadian populace (particularly that back east).  As a result, I find the Conservative Party to be insufficiently far-right, even post-Canadian Alliance-Progressive Conservative Party merger (the Canadian Alliance was a party to the right of the Progressive Conservatives that was popular in the West; prior to the merger, it was the largest centre-right party in Canada, but wasn't large enough to win an election because of a lack of support in the East.  The merger remedied that by uniting the vote on the right.).  Although the US has its problems with socialist policies (as does Canada), I am sure I would feel right at home as a tea-partier in Idaho.  Some day, perhaps.  
3. Patriotism is quite rare in Canada, and for good reason.  Americans have the constitution, in which the spirit of the founding fathers lives on.  Those noble men admirably severed all ties to Britain, and, by doing so, became the world's largest power, one whose citizens enjoyed freedom envied by the rest of the world.  Although the US has been metaphorically poisoned by socialism, there is hope for a return to the noble spirit embodied by the founding fathers.  Canada, on the other hand, is nothing more than an extension of the British empire, despite posessing sovereignty.  Why should I be proud of Canada's Westminster-style democratic government?  Why should I be proud of Canada's "spirit," that which embodies compassion?  Some things are done right here, but most things are not.  There is a reason for the fleetingness of Canadian patriotism.  

See also, this post, wherein I argue for a reformation of Canada's government.  

Cycling and Socialism

One thing that irritates me immensely is when politicians are obstinate about implementing unpopular programs or initiatives because “they are better for everyone.”  An example is Vancouver’s mayor, Gregor Robertson, and his zeal for cycling.  Among cyclists, Vancouver is known as a cyclist-unfriendly city.  Mayor Robertson is hell-bent on changing that.  He has established numerous cycle paths in Vancouver, despite opposition from motorists and business owners.

Montreal, on the other hand, is known among cyclists as a cyclist-friendly city.  Montreal has sacrificed parking spaces downtown for bicycle paths.  This has created problems such as a shortage of parking and lower profits for businesses.  Because parking spaces at the sides of streets are converted into bicycle lanes, there is less parking available which means less patrons for businesses. 

The motivation of having a cyclist-friendly city is to reduce traffic, thereby reducing congestion, as well as pollution, and offering an alternate commute.  Those are all noble causes, or whatever, but they should not be pursued at the expense of parking, which, especially in Vancouver, is a sparse commodity.  Montreal is having problems, and Vancouver’s nascent bicycle lanes are already causing problems as well.

So, given that bicycle lanes cause problems, and given that there is much opposition to the establishment of bicycle lanes in downtown Vancouver, Mayor Robertson's obstinacy is quite irritating.  Of course, given that he is a leftist, this is unsurprising.  One of the central tenets of leftism (or liberalism, progressivism, socialism, social democracy, or whatever you want to call it) seems to be that (private) business can be sacrificed for anything else.  I suppose this is logical, considering socialists treat the private sector like an ATM.  

Canada's Paradise

The Vancouver Pride Festival is coming up soon (in case anyone was wondering why I am writing about Gay Pride now).  A much different event, the Calgary Stampede, ended almost two weeks ago.  Aside from the festive nature of both events, the contrast could not be more different.  The Calgary Stampede, the world's largest rodeo, is a celebration of Calgary's western heritage.  The Calgary Stampede started in 1886 as the Calgary and District Agricultural Society Exhibition.  The Stampede is closely tied with Calgary's identity.

Alberta is sometimes referred to "The Texas of Canada" (at least by me), and, indeed, Alberta is well known in Canada for its conservative politics.  Alberta gave the Conservatives the highest percentage of its popular vote (67%) in 2011.  The Conservative Party has won very seat in Alberta outside of Edmonton for the past four federal elections (every election since the foundation of the Conservative Party), as well as every seat in Edmonton in one of those.  Rural Alberta ridings gave anywhere between 84 and 75 percent of their votes to the Conservative Party in 2011.  Alberta's Progressive Conservative Association (definitely not progressive) has formed the provincial government since 1971.  Alberta is also Canada's wealthiest province, due to its oil sands (which I will defend to the death, metaphorically).  In addition, Calgary, Alberta's largest city, is arguably one of North America's most conservative cities (which I consider to be metropolitan areas with over one million people).

During the Stampede, western wear is visible around the city.  So tied to Calgary's identity is the Stampede and its western heritage, a cowboy hat appears on the city's flag (see below).

Originally, this post was going to be about something else entirely.  However, as I was writing it, it turned into a post about Alberta politics.  The introduction, which I decided not to change (for a sense of contemporary relevance), is indicative of such.  I could go on and on about how much I love Alberta and I can't wait to move there (I was raised and currently live in British Columbia); incidentally, I am really starting to embrace my inner redneck.  At the same time, Calgary is sadly evolving (or devolving, if you ask me) into a PC hell, seemingly just like every other place in the Western world, which I guess is inevitable for a rapidly growing major city.  Fortunately, this process seems to be quite slow.  The Calgary Stampede (an event that showcases toughness and masculinity, and one that p*sses off animal rights groups) and the pride in which Calgary's residents show during said event, leave me optimistic.

Crisis in Greece

The various debt crises in Europe started in 2008 because of the worldwide late 2000's financial crisis.  Greece has suffered the worst economic crisis.

In 1974, when Greece established democracy after the right-wing military junta fell, the government began running large deficits so it could finance public sector jobs and social services in an attempt to mainstream its left-of-centre population.  Because of widespread tax evasion, corruption, and inefficient bureaucracy, Greece has had to rely upon borrowing to sustain its spending.  In recent years, the cost of borrowing has increased dramatically (because of the debt), so Greece entered an economic crisis and it could no longer sustain its level of spending.  This led to the enacting of severe austerity measures.

The citizens of Greece have been protesting these austerity measures, which has resulted in riots.  My question is, what do they want to happen?  There is no other realistic alternative to these austerity measures (at least, none that I am aware of), so why are they protesting?

The crisis in Greece presents a problem to the entire Eurozone because of how interconnected the economies of each of its member states are.  Measures designed to stabilize the Eurozone have been enacted by many other Eurozone members, most notably Germany.  In 2010, Germany made a multi-million euro payment to Greece and other financially unstable nations.  The constitutionality of the bailout is currently being contested in Germany.

The European nations of Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, and Iceland have also suffered economic crises.

Gender Bending Diversity Training

Gender Spectrum Diversity Training sounds hideously politically correct on its own, but that was the name of a program targeted towards kindergarten students:

Redwood Heights Elementary School in Oakland, CA has joined the chorus of those wishing to mainstream 'gender-bending' by enacting a program this week that, according to a press release, tells kindergarteners 'there are more than two genders.'

 The kindergarten through fifth grade school hosted a 2-day program for students titled, 'Gender Spectrum Diversity Training,' in which single-sex Hawaiian geckos and transgender clownfish were brought in to teach children that 'there are different ways to be boys. There are different ways to be girls,' according to Redwood Heights principal Sara Stone. Students received gender diversity training as they learned about 'boy snakes that act 'girly'.' 

This is only the latest example of what seems to be a New-Age, gender-bending agenda pushed into the mainstream media by those who refuse to accept the traditional sex differences between men and women. A couple in Toronto, Canada has sparked outrage because they refuse to assign a specific gender to their infant 'Storm,' preferring instead to believe 'a child's sex should not determine his or her place in the world.

Firstly, I highly doubt kindergarten students understand what gender is.  If little boys act like girls sometimes, they are not self-conscious about it.  They don't understand that what they are doing is "gender bending."  Secondly, lizards and fish are not comparable to humans.  There are numerous species that exhibit transsexuality (called hermaphroditism in biology).  For hermaphroditic species, either having both male and female sexual organs simultaneously or changing sexual organs at some point is common, if not universal.  Clownfish, unlike humans, are hermaphroditic (they are born male, but may become female).  Obviously, kindergarten students would not be able understand that, but deriving a "lesson" from a flawed comparison seems unethical to me.  That is not to mention everything else that is horribly wrong with indoctrinating children with this politically correct "gender bending" agenda.  

In human culture, there is a reason for the social construct of gender: that males and females are fundamentally different and have fundamentally different roles.  I think women should have the same rights as men, but that does not mean that women are the same as men.  If small children have problems with their gender, then they should be allowed to deal with that on their own.  This is yet another example of the illusion that life is easy and everyone loves everyone that children are perpetually exposed to in schools.  Life is hard, and it is even harder when you think it is easy.  Instead of indoctrinating children with vile ideals and exposing them to sex at a disgustingly early age (see also, this post), schools should focus on teaching children things like science and math and let them establish their own ideals through their own experiences.  

Society is gradually becoming more accepting of deviance of gender roles.  What is wrong with the expectation that men act like men and women act like women?  In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with that.  School is a joke and parents are becoming so over-protective that their children are not mature enough that they can't function in the real world because they never had the opportunity to learn from their mistakes.  The world is gradually becoming an abhorrently progressive dystopia.  The traditional family unit is important to the health of society.  I will go into that in more detail in a subsequent post.  For now, I will conclude that, given that premise, traditional gender roles are also important for the health of society.  Exposing children to androgyny cannot be good.  

I also wanted to say something about this, the Toronto couple that is raising a "genderless" child that was mentioned in that article I linked to.  

A Toronto couple is taking their beliefs about parenting and gender stereotypes to new heights: They refuse to tell people the gender of 4-month-old Storm, reports the Toronto Star. Even the kid's grandparents are in the dark. “In fact, in not telling the gender of my precious baby, I am saying to the world, ‘Please can you just let Storm discover for him/herself what s(he) wants to be?!”

I do believe that parents (not schools) should be able to raise their children how they want to, but this seems almost criminal.  This has to be some form of child abuse.

Militant progressivism has reached a new low.