Tuesday, September 28, 2010

"Honour" killing

I recently read something that I consider to be pretty disgusting; between 2002 and 2010 there were 15 "honour killings" in Canada. A "honour killing" is where what I call (in the interests of multicultural understanding) a "murdering turd-stain" murders a family member, usually female, who has, in the murdering turd-stains "mind", brought dishonour on the family. Dishonour in these cases can be a young girl wanting to go to a mall with her friends, or even having friends. Of course I had heard of honour killings, but I had always thought that this sort of half-witted crap only happened in parts of the world where the inhabitants still call their left hand their "shit hand" because they use it to clean their butts after a dump since they haven't quite worked out the complexities of toilet paper. Well it looks like these slugs are sneaking into civilized countries now.

For the record; I am not against immigration. At all. There are good, decent, intelligent people all over the world and they should be welcomed to Canada. Diversity only makes Canada stronger. What we do not need is backwards little freaks who believe it is their cultural right to murder or mutilate or hurt in any way women or girls due to some cave-man view of gender relations. That crowd can stay in their rat-hole little countries and rot.

AS far as those who have already managed to sneak into civilized places, well anybody can change and this bunch has nowhere to go but up. And as far as the murderers go, once convicted of first-degree murder they can go into the general population of a prison. If they get released and they are an immigrant, then they are out of the country, on a rail and tarred and feathered if possible.

I guess there are those who would call this view racist. If thinking that the culturally driven murder of women and girls is racist, then fine. I can live with that. Of course there are always those who use "racist" as their first line of defence, mainly because it beats thinking. There are those who fold when the "R-card" is played, but bag that action. I won't go that route and those who say that say that all cultures are equally deserving of respect should pull their heads out of their butts with a loud, slurping pop and maybe admit that any culture that supports the murder of women and girls, or most anybody else for that matter, doesn't really deserve to be called a "culture". The sooner that way of "thinking" dies out, the better.

Anyway... Humouroceros

Sunday, September 26, 2010

"Free" music!

So I understand what intellectual theft is, and I have to say that I am not in favour of it. If someone has created something and I choose to use that something, then I should pay the creator in some way for the right to use that something. What I am thinking about here are things like movies, books and especially music. Anybody who is interested in this sort of thing will remember back a decade or two when the hard-rock band, Metallica, went after the music sharing web-site, Napster. Napster, as so many of us will remember, was the first peer-to-peer music file sharing site where one could share one's music with a million+ of one's closest friends, for "free". Of course "free" means that the artist who created the music doesn't get paid for their work and the members of Metallica thought this was wrong (really it is kind of hard to fault them for feeling this way). Of course then came the Internet freedomistas who claimed that the Internet was a whole new paradigm and that everything on it should be free. How very hippy-dippy. Peace, love and gimme, gimme, gimme.

One thing (of many) I thought was kind of funny about the whole music file-sharing situation was that it seems that the most active file sharers were University students. You would think that someone bright enough to make it into University would be bright enough to understand that file-sharing isn't "sharing", it is "theft". So, with their university educations, they all plan to work for free? Many university students seem to expect musicians to give their music, their work, for free so why would the students expect to be paid for working? That would be hypocritical, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it?

Now, having said all that, I have been buying music for a lot of years. I think I bought my first LP in 1972 or so. Every job I had when I was young, a lot of what I earned went towards music before anything else. I still have most of those LPs I bought, and the 45s, and no real way to listen to any of it. The needle on my turntable is pretty worn and it would cost a lot to replace the needle and cartridge, and a worn needle is not good for the records. One day I may buy a new one, but until that time what is a boy to do?

In my humble opinion, when I bought all that music I also bought the right to listen to all that music. When the recording industry went to compact discs and companies stopped making turntables (and needles) listening to the music I had spent so much money on became problematic. And here comes the file sharing. If I choose to listen to Lady Jane by the Rolling Stones (which I have on two different LPs) or Leper Messiah by Metallica (which I have on one LP) why should I have to pay to buy either of these songs on a CD or as a MP3? I already bought the songs, and the right to listen to them whenever I choose. Why shouldn't I download them from a file sharing site? For something new I don't mind buying a CD or a MP3 (I like I-Tunes) but why should I be expected to put out more money for something I bought thirty years ago?

I understand that at best this is a slippery defense, but I believe it is a valid one. The record companies and the artists got their money from me. Why would they want to gouge me twice for the same piece of music (and please don't get me started on when record companies release "best of" compilations with two or three new songs added, or when they re-release a classic album with new music included - No, I will not be buying the new and improved Exile On Mainstreet by the Rolling Stones with ten "new" songs added. What a crock!) I am sure there are those who would say I am "ripping off the artists" and to those people I would suggest that they tug their heads out of their asses. I have already paid for the music so how, exactly, am I ripping off the artists? Also, if I pay for the same piece of music more than once, isn't that me being ripped off, and that's alright, is it?

I know I won't be seeing eye to eye with any record companies any time soon but that fine. I don't see eye to eye with mosquitoes either. Let's just carry on as things stand and I am sure that it will all come out in the wash. Okay? Okay!

Anyway... Humouroceros

Friday, September 24, 2010

Recalling the H.S.T.

As usual we British Columbians are all in a dither and, also as usual, I don't know for sure what is causing it. Is it the mountains, the ocean, or just the general ambiance of the place? Hard to say for sure but if I were a betting man, and I am not, then I would say it was just the usual politicalness of the place. As those who follow this sort of thing will remember, the L.O.G. (Liberal Occupying Government) in Victoria recently inflicted the Harmonized Sales Tax on the province. This is a harmonization of the Provincial Sales Tax and the federal Goods and Services Tax. In other words the tax is merely the combination of the PST and the GST, it does not go up or down at this point but it does put taxes on many items that were not taxed by the PST previously (I have written about this before [blog June 15, 2010] but to see the complete list for yourself go to http://hst.blog.gov.bc.ca where with a minimum of searching you will find a .pdf put out by the government telling how the tax will change what one pays for some items). I for one don't like it, but that is me and I have never been voted into office of any kind, so what do I know?

Now big Bill Vander Zalm has been voted into political office (as premier of British Columbia back in the long ago) and thusly may know something about these sorts of things, and big Bill is against the HST as well. Now way back I didn't like Bill, politically. He always reminded me of Ronny Reagan from the US of A, a complete dickwad when he had any power but probably a pretty nice guy in person, probably. But that was then and this is now, Ronny is dead and Bill is fomenting unrest against the L.O.G. and the HST. Good on yer, Bill. So after the HST became the law of the province Bill sez, (and I am paraphrasing here) "Let us use the recall law of the great Province of British Columbia to toss some of those Liberal sons of bitches out of office." The Liberals, being brave of heart and strong of smell, stood their ground fearlessly and said, (once again I am paraphrasing) "We are a bunch of lying, cowardly creeps and so we will allow the suckers, I mean, the good citizens of this province to vote in a non-binding referendum as to whether we should keep the HST or not. This non-binding referendum will cost about $ 30-million and will be held in a year (September 2011), so quit scaring us." They soon said that the referendum would be "binding" rather than "non-binding", which is still pretty meaningless since they will challenge every signature on every recall sign-up sheet, but it looks good in the media, and this is where we stand at the moment. Bill and the anti-HST forces have announce the names of the Liberal MLAs they will be going after using the Survivor tag-line, "vote them off the island" (Victoria is on Vancouver Island, get it?) and the Liberals trying, pathetically, to make this into some sort of game-show thing, "I would have thought the future of the province and the economy would be more important than a game", saying one. Way to try to change the message there, buddy. Better luck next time.

Now here, for better or worse, is my humble take on the whole situation. As the Liberals have been telling us for the past year how important the HST is to the future of the province's economic health, why not just leave it in place? Just say that a majority of the voters of the province voted them into power to lead, and they are going to lead, and as leaders they are going to keep the HST whether the voters like it or not. Call it tough love or whatever. Then when the next provincial election rolls around they can run on the success of the HST, pointing to the economic powerhouse that BC will be at the time and to the .00001% provincial unemployment rate. There'll be pot in every chicken and every garage will have two cars in it and the main problem that every citizen of the province will have will be on how to spend all the extra money they have in their pockets. Why, I bet they would win hands down, then their fearless leader (Gord "the weasel" Campbell) could retire to a lavish island in the Gulf Islands where he could spend his days working on his tan and his evenings dictating his memoirs. Go big or go home is the phrase I think.

Unfortunately the Liberals have decided to take another tack and are now spending their time hiding under rocks and stuff, which on one hand may be the right move, but I doubt it. Of course I have never run for political office and I still have the quaint notion that politicians are there to lead, not to follow. Heh, heh, how old fashioned is that? Still, one does at time wish that a politician would rise to the occasion and be a leader. Maybe next year.

Anyway... Humouroceros

Wednesday, September 08, 2010

Cook a book

Pastor Terry Jones (not the Monty Python Terry Jones but rather some loonie out of Gainesville, Florida) of the Dove World Outreach Center (reach out and smack someone?) announced recently that in remembrance of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, his church would be holding a Koran burning. Two hundred copies of the Koran would be burnt and I suspect there would be a hotdog roast to follow. Folks all over the world are all upset over this, calling it an unnecessary provocation of those who follow the Islamic faith.

I look at it a different way: apparently book burnings are not just for Nazis any more. Or are they?

Anyway... Humouroceros