Well Garth?
March 3, 2008 · By Matthew
Your leader* and your party are about to get sued, but where’s your typical outrage that Stephen Harper is being unfair or trying to muzzle MPs that we’ve all come to expect? I had good money riding on your habitual banter!!!
* - I use this term VERY loosely…
Liberal Libel
March 3, 2008 · By Shane Edwards
Kinda look the same don’t they?
Follow the links:
Postcript: Ha!
This insightful political commentary provided by Stephane Dion and the Liberal Party of Canada.
And to think. I was hearing rumblings that the LPC were considering forcing an election over this.
Canadian Cynic Gets One Right, Hell Freezes Over, More At 11…
March 1, 2008 · By Matthew
Okay, so it’s got the usual 3rd grade argument level and is only written by one of his toadies but, hey, baby steps, right? I have to confess that I’m in agreement with the spirit of this post (albeit tentatively). Dr. Charles McVety is a very respectable figure in the Christian community in southern Ontario but I think that he and the government are setting up a dangerous situation in having the Canadian Film Tax Credit conditioned on the content of the project.
I think we all have a strong objection to the money that we earned by our own sweat being used to fund programs that we find offensive or objectionable.
For any Christians who think that this is a step in righting the wrongs of past Liberal governments who have used taxpayer dollars for Christianophobic material is that the shoe will eventually get onto the other foot; not if, WILL! A Liberal government in the future need only redeclare the program as serving to protect minority voices and volia, feminazis will be the typical type of group getting film funding.
The same goes for those on the left who are self-professed agnostics, atheists and the like. Think of how you would feel if this program in its current form went through. Not nice to know that your money is funding ignorant, intolerant hate-speech, or whatever you’re describing religious opinion as these days, is it? As I said, the shoe will always go on the other foot in a democracy like ours, so why are we taking turns being offended when we should just let the people who make the money such programs are greased by make the decisions themselves…with their dollars?
In extension, my only hope is that now that we’ve woken up the socialites to the notion that group-specific funding can be divisive, they won’t be as hypocritical as to call for programs like the Court Challenges Program to be reinstated. Just some food for thought…
(h/t to Bene Diction Blogs On)
Ben Stein asking for handouts
February 20, 2008 · By Charles Anthony
Instead of getting lost in the clutter of comments here or there, I have decided to create a separate post because I am presenting a slightly different criticism.
I have not seen the movie yet but I first encountered Ben Stein’s blog last Summer when he started the promotion. It smacked of too much statism. I am just going to quote him directly:
In today’s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research.
Did you catch that?
Here it is in plain language: Ben Stein is linking grants to freedom.
Is he suggesting that Einstein or Newton or Galileo were entitled to grants? or that they needed grants?
You see, I agree with very nearly everything he says except he makes a huge mistake. Just because a person does not get a grant, it does not mean his freedom to study is suppressed. Certainly things are pretty unfair if everybody else gets grants but that is a different battle. Nobody is entitled to grants.
The “freedom of inquiry” is not suppressed if grants are being denied. The Intelligent Design believer can go study on his own and pay for it himself.
Ben Stein should be careful when he uses the word freedom but coming from a person who made money writing talking points for U.S. Presidents, it does not surprise me that his sense of entitlement is a little bit tarnished.
—-
Hold on! Scratch everything I just wrote.
Come to think of it: if only there was a grant to study underwater basket-weaving, my freedom of inquiry could flourish!
Why are we rehashing this discussion? Oh, yeah! We have to pump some more life into this pre-release promotional campaign!
So Much For Neutral Scientific Interest
February 19, 2008 · By Matthew
A delightful little explosion in readership happened back under my watch in January with a post about the upcoming Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed documentary staring Ben Stein (I admit that I deserve no credit for it, the potty-mouthed Canadian Cynic demonstrated his talent to aid his opponents’ cause more than his own). A flustered Prof. PZ Myers sent his little minions (if this were a movie, I picture a scene from the Wizard Of Oz, around the time that the flying monkeys make their appearance — that’s what the crowd thinks they basically are anyway!) over here to tell me, American IPAs in hand, how embarrassed they were to be Canadian they were (I wish those sentiments were true, honestly!), how I had to apologize to the above-mentioned offended professor for misunderstanding a 150 year-old title of a book (oops!; I guess you guys’ll now fess up that you might have misinterpreted that whole 220-odd year-old “separation of church and state” clause now…) and one particularly amusing demand that gave me till 5:30 one day to respond to the little monkeys or else I would have all credibility banished forever (and I was looking forward to seeing that Funny Farm application go through too!).
Anyway, over at the Expelled movie website, a little tidbit was revealed today that explains that the Professor of the West might be trying to hide some skeletons of his own (much akin to the dogmatic types who insist that we acknowledge macroevolution’s reality, or else). I’m a good sport though and I’m feeling generous so here’s a proposal: Prof. PZ Myers,you have until 5:30 pm (your local time) to fess up to these accusations and explain yourself. Otherwise, you will forever be cast as having no credibility! Looking forward to hearing the response…;)
Rat Patrol - The Movie
February 7, 2008 · By Marsilio Facino
Everyone’s favorite good guy is hot on the trail of Victor Bergman:
Using a fake (German) Rat Patrol, Dietrich abducts an Arab holy man that he will then “rescue” so that the Arabs will give their help to the Germans. The real Patrol is captured by the Arabs, though, and when they convince the Arab leader — who is a friend of Moffitt’s — that they aren’t guilty, Troy and Moffitt go to find the holy man. To do so means a horse trip across the desert. (Airdate: 2-13-1967)
Breaking up is hard to do
February 2, 2008 · By Marsilio Facino
Parting is such sweet sorrow.
Achtung! Thank you for smoking
January 31, 2008 · By Marsilio Facino
Do you smoke? No?
The first tobacco ban was imposed by the Nazi Party under direct orders from Adolf Hitler. (Follow the Wikipedia entry to footnote 1).
A Curious Genetic Failure
January 31, 2008 · By Marsilio Facino
What say you, Messrs. Dion, Ignatieff, Rae et al.? Do you agree with this stunt? Not surprisingly, the Nazis do. (Anti-semitic link deleted). ……
(From the good folks at Wikipedia):
The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone’s origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.
The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question.[1] Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are irrelevant to its merits. [2]
According to the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, the term originates in Morris Cohen and Ernest Nagel’s book Logic and Scientific Method.
Illustrative Example for those who may have failed their logic course:
From Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer, Third Edition p. 36:
“You’re not going to wear a wedding ring, are you? Don’t you know that the wedding ring originally symbolized ankle chains worn by women to prevent them from running away from their husbands? I would not have thought you would be a party to such a sexist practice.” There may be reasons why people may not wish to wear wedding rings, but it would be logically inappropriate for a couple to reject the notion of exchanging wedding rings on the sole grounds of its alleged sexist origins.
Liberal Is As Liberal Does!
January 31, 2008 · By Matthew
A slate of Ontario Young Liberals executive hopefuls have a new website, but what’s amusing is seeing that their vision matches up quite nicely with the true federal and provincial Liberals visions. They should be shoo-ins!
Recent Comments