The term “Pacific Northwest” is an attempt to include the 3 contiguous states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho as a geological or geopolitical entity, while excluding the state of Alaska and the province of British Columbia, Canada. Often, it is an attempt to refer to the similarities of climate of these three American states. Thus, geopolitical entities with common boundaries and a similar climate are aggregated.
However, Canada is not a part of the United States.
Thus, any inclusion of the Southwest portion of Canada in the term “Pacific Northwest” is wrong. Naturally, this does not stop the mentally lazy or geographically stupid from including BC as part of the U.S.
If one wishes to stress the similarities of climate between Canada’s West Coast province of British Columbia, and the American West Coast states of Washington and Oregon, then one can refer to the West Coast of Canada and the US, or our common Temperate Rainforest climate, although one must then throw in the Alaska panhandle and Northern California as well.
One cannot say “The West Coast of North America”, because everything North of the Panama Canal bordering the Pacific would be included, and would include many different climates indeed.
Let us examine the phrase “Pacific Northwest”.
If one is referring to the Pacific Ocean, as indeed we are, then the Northwest must refer to the quadrant bordering countries from Singapore to Siberia. This area, I need hardly point out, does not include any part of the contiguous 48 states of the continental U.S.
The “Pacific Northeast” would of course refer to the entire strip of coast from Ecuador to Alaska. Closer, but no cigar.
I call on all Canadian writers and broadcasters to refer to BC simply as BC, and not as part of some wrongly-defined Cascadia.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Ritual Mutilation in Canada
December 28, 2006
Today’s topic is ritual mutilation, practiced among some tribes in Africa, the ill-informed, and of course Jews.
Some tribes in Africa cut lines in their faces and rub mud in, to make nifty scars. Other tribes actually cut out the labia and clitorises of young girls so that the young girls will not stray from their new owners after marriage. Presumably, if the girl will never be able to enjoy sex, then there will be no reason to ever leave the only man that she will ever have sex with.
There was some media coverage of this in Canada, when some of these people came to Canada as immigrants, and wanted to continue this quaint custom here.
Hoo-ha, said some women’s groups, this must not be allowed because it hurts women.
Hiya, said some cultural groups, the un-elected judges who rule Canada will say that cultural rights trump women’s rights. Just wait and see!
While much attention was given to this barbaric ritual, and the possible perpetuation of it in Canada, few commentators made reference to the equally barbaric ritual of circumcision of males that is a part of the Jewish religion.
Doctors, who take the Hippocratic oath, “First, do no harm”, routinely cut healthy tissue from male babies. This is more hypocrisy that Hippocrates.
The ill-informed may also take part in this, citing “health reasons”.
If pressed, the pro-mutilators will refer to an 18th-century study of chimney sweeps who let coal dust accumulate under their foreskins and thus had a higher rate of cancer than those who just let the coal dust fall off.
So, if you are a chimney sweep who never washes your genitals, then circumcision just might be for you.
Or maybe not. After all, the tobacco companies were able to prove that smoking is good for you, in a few cases. One of these cases was where men working in an asbestos factory who also smoked a couple of packs a day, got fewer cases of cancer than those who did not, as the heavy mucous in the lungs caused by the smoking allowed the men to expectorate most of the asbestos fibers that they inhaled, while those without the mucous took the carcinogen fibers straight into their lungs.
I believe that an adult should be able to do whatever he or she wants, so long as it does not hurt someone else. If you want to pierce your nose so you look like a bull going out to pasture, if you want to tattoo yourself like a stamped side of beef, if you want to drink or smoke yourself stupid, so long as you are supporting yourself (not living off of relatives, loved ones, or taxpayers), then go ahead. You are only hurting yourself and those who choose to associate themselves with you.
BUT I strongly believe that the practice of ritual mutilation of penises would tend to wither if it could only be performed after the age of 19. Give the kid a chance to decide for himself if he wants to hang onto the bit at the end.
For you Darwinists, the foreskin is still there after many, many generations. It must serve a purpose. Perhaps that purpose is protection, perhaps to maintain the sensitivity of the nerve endings underneath.
What is clear, is that there is no purpose to its removal, and no purpose to the continuation of this barbaric custom. Perhaps a ritual nail-clipping would suffice, or just sacrifice a chicken. Leave the kid alone!
Today’s topic is ritual mutilation, practiced among some tribes in Africa, the ill-informed, and of course Jews.
Some tribes in Africa cut lines in their faces and rub mud in, to make nifty scars. Other tribes actually cut out the labia and clitorises of young girls so that the young girls will not stray from their new owners after marriage. Presumably, if the girl will never be able to enjoy sex, then there will be no reason to ever leave the only man that she will ever have sex with.
There was some media coverage of this in Canada, when some of these people came to Canada as immigrants, and wanted to continue this quaint custom here.
Hoo-ha, said some women’s groups, this must not be allowed because it hurts women.
Hiya, said some cultural groups, the un-elected judges who rule Canada will say that cultural rights trump women’s rights. Just wait and see!
While much attention was given to this barbaric ritual, and the possible perpetuation of it in Canada, few commentators made reference to the equally barbaric ritual of circumcision of males that is a part of the Jewish religion.
Doctors, who take the Hippocratic oath, “First, do no harm”, routinely cut healthy tissue from male babies. This is more hypocrisy that Hippocrates.
The ill-informed may also take part in this, citing “health reasons”.
If pressed, the pro-mutilators will refer to an 18th-century study of chimney sweeps who let coal dust accumulate under their foreskins and thus had a higher rate of cancer than those who just let the coal dust fall off.
So, if you are a chimney sweep who never washes your genitals, then circumcision just might be for you.
Or maybe not. After all, the tobacco companies were able to prove that smoking is good for you, in a few cases. One of these cases was where men working in an asbestos factory who also smoked a couple of packs a day, got fewer cases of cancer than those who did not, as the heavy mucous in the lungs caused by the smoking allowed the men to expectorate most of the asbestos fibers that they inhaled, while those without the mucous took the carcinogen fibers straight into their lungs.
I believe that an adult should be able to do whatever he or she wants, so long as it does not hurt someone else. If you want to pierce your nose so you look like a bull going out to pasture, if you want to tattoo yourself like a stamped side of beef, if you want to drink or smoke yourself stupid, so long as you are supporting yourself (not living off of relatives, loved ones, or taxpayers), then go ahead. You are only hurting yourself and those who choose to associate themselves with you.
BUT I strongly believe that the practice of ritual mutilation of penises would tend to wither if it could only be performed after the age of 19. Give the kid a chance to decide for himself if he wants to hang onto the bit at the end.
For you Darwinists, the foreskin is still there after many, many generations. It must serve a purpose. Perhaps that purpose is protection, perhaps to maintain the sensitivity of the nerve endings underneath.
What is clear, is that there is no purpose to its removal, and no purpose to the continuation of this barbaric custom. Perhaps a ritual nail-clipping would suffice, or just sacrifice a chicken. Leave the kid alone!
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
It are they
So, there you are, reading a sentence that refers to an individual, which is of course 1 person, and in the same sentence that single person transmutes into a group. It's happening everywhere, and all because grammar is not taught in schools anymore, and copywriters and editors let it go!
An example:" Each student should keep their gum in their mouth"
Jesus!
Is one student the receptacle for all of the class gum? Is there simply a collective mouth where gum is stored?
The stupidity illustrated above occurs because the old method was held to be sexist, and the only other correct method is just too difficult, apparently because the communal mouth is full of gum.
The old method was to say, if referring to a male, "Each student should keep his gum in his mouth". Often, females were wrongly included in such a statement, due to the laziness of the speaker, and the assumption that naturally, anybody chewing gum would understand that he or she was included.
The correct method is, and was, to use the phrase "he or she", or in this case, "his or her".
To avoid a career-ending ritual disembowelment following the use of sex in language, North American academics have preferred to change one into many in mid-sentence, and made the language the worse for it.
Imagine the difficulties of the sex-obsessed grammar mangler in Europe, where tables and doors have sex, and girls don't(das fraulein).
Another attempt to avoid group sex is to refer to a team (again, a single entity) as a group.
For example: "England are winning today".
The English team are winning.
How many English teams are there? One.
So, to refer to an individual, we say either she, he, or it, followed by IS.
I believe that it is far better English to use the verb for a single entity(is), than to refer to that single entity as a group.
Hence, "England is winning today" sounds much better.
Naturally, if one is referring to the players, or the forwards, then one would say "The English forwards are playing well today". "Forwards" is a plural noun, requiring the plural verb "are".
An example:" Each student should keep their gum in their mouth"
Jesus!
Is one student the receptacle for all of the class gum? Is there simply a collective mouth where gum is stored?
The stupidity illustrated above occurs because the old method was held to be sexist, and the only other correct method is just too difficult, apparently because the communal mouth is full of gum.
The old method was to say, if referring to a male, "Each student should keep his gum in his mouth". Often, females were wrongly included in such a statement, due to the laziness of the speaker, and the assumption that naturally, anybody chewing gum would understand that he or she was included.
The correct method is, and was, to use the phrase "he or she", or in this case, "his or her".
To avoid a career-ending ritual disembowelment following the use of sex in language, North American academics have preferred to change one into many in mid-sentence, and made the language the worse for it.
Imagine the difficulties of the sex-obsessed grammar mangler in Europe, where tables and doors have sex, and girls don't(das fraulein).
Another attempt to avoid group sex is to refer to a team (again, a single entity) as a group.
For example: "England are winning today".
The English team are winning.
How many English teams are there? One.
So, to refer to an individual, we say either she, he, or it, followed by IS.
I believe that it is far better English to use the verb for a single entity(is), than to refer to that single entity as a group.
Hence, "England is winning today" sounds much better.
Naturally, if one is referring to the players, or the forwards, then one would say "The English forwards are playing well today". "Forwards" is a plural noun, requiring the plural verb "are".
You Say You Want A Revolution
The United Party of Canada (no French translation, please) would have as its central core the unification of Canada into a one-language, one nation, one law, equal rights and responsibilities country. From the massive reduction in internal divisions would come the strength to exert ourselves effectively both economically and militarily over the huge landscape we now claim control over. Canada will then become the power that has always had the potential to be.
As Lenin said: "What is to be done?"
First, Quebec must be given a homeland, with borders such that the vast majority of French-speakers would lie within within the new homeland.
Those French speakers outside the new borders (including those in New Brunswick) would have the option of relocating to the new, smaller state of Quebec, or becoming fluent in English within 1 year, at their own expense, and remaining in Canada.
Canadian citizenship would be revoked for all those living in Quebec after their independence.
The new state of Quebec would start off with no foreign debt. In return for this, all federal assets and banking instruments would be removed to Canada, and all Bank head offices.
Secondly, all individual native indians in Canada would be given the option of accepting the fair market value of the reserve land currently inhabited (not claimed) and paid out to each native person OR relocating to the Queen Charlotte Islands, which would be the new home for all native peoples, and would be a new state.
In the first case, each individual would remain as a Canadian citizen, and would be free to take his or her money to purchase the land currently on, or start a business, move anywhere, do anything with the money.
With one stroke, natives either receive money to leave apartheid forever, to move wherever their money and individual potentials will take them, OR become part of a new state, with unlimited potential to make that country what they want of it, with oil and gas revenues, with great opportunities for making new lives in fishing, logging, forestry, and tourism.
The divisions of Quebec and native aspirations would be gone, and a united Canada would have strong friends in new countries.
Quebec is already fairly far along the road to independence. God willing, I will see it go in my lifetime. Like a piece of grit in one's eye, it will give great relief when it goes, and it must go, and soon.
As Lenin said: "What is to be done?"
First, Quebec must be given a homeland, with borders such that the vast majority of French-speakers would lie within within the new homeland.
Those French speakers outside the new borders (including those in New Brunswick) would have the option of relocating to the new, smaller state of Quebec, or becoming fluent in English within 1 year, at their own expense, and remaining in Canada.
Canadian citizenship would be revoked for all those living in Quebec after their independence.
The new state of Quebec would start off with no foreign debt. In return for this, all federal assets and banking instruments would be removed to Canada, and all Bank head offices.
Secondly, all individual native indians in Canada would be given the option of accepting the fair market value of the reserve land currently inhabited (not claimed) and paid out to each native person OR relocating to the Queen Charlotte Islands, which would be the new home for all native peoples, and would be a new state.
In the first case, each individual would remain as a Canadian citizen, and would be free to take his or her money to purchase the land currently on, or start a business, move anywhere, do anything with the money.
With one stroke, natives either receive money to leave apartheid forever, to move wherever their money and individual potentials will take them, OR become part of a new state, with unlimited potential to make that country what they want of it, with oil and gas revenues, with great opportunities for making new lives in fishing, logging, forestry, and tourism.
The divisions of Quebec and native aspirations would be gone, and a united Canada would have strong friends in new countries.
Quebec is already fairly far along the road to independence. God willing, I will see it go in my lifetime. Like a piece of grit in one's eye, it will give great relief when it goes, and it must go, and soon.
Happy Holidays
What holidays are you referring to? Would it be some combination of North American holidays, like Dominion Day and Labour Day? Perhaps an Asian combination, like Khao Pansa and the Sultan's birthday?
Perhaps you are just being irrepressibly coy, and really mean to refer to Christmas Day and New Year's Day, but are afraid of hurting the feelings of those of the atheist persuasion, and those of non-Christian religions, by using any mention of Christmas, or Christ.
Don't be shy!
For atheists, Christmas is just another opportunity to sneer at what cannot be proven, and a paid holiday. It is a chance for them to be smug in their fancied rational superiority.
Members of other religions may admire Christians for our faith in God, and for the moral teachings of the Bible, while agreeing amongst themselves that we have got many important things wrong. They certainly would not think of ceasing their celebrations, as a sop to our feelings, nor should they!
In any case, nobody is being forced to be a Christian, or to celebrate the day.
Christmas Day celebrates the birth of Jesus and is the opportunity for people to believe in something far greater than themselves.
As such, it deserves the respect of all, especially advertisers seeking to extract the last available dollar from those equating their magnitude of love and sentiment with gift size.
Let there by no more hum buggery of vague, sly references to impending and past holidays!
So, Merry Christmas AND a Happy New Year to All!
Perhaps you are just being irrepressibly coy, and really mean to refer to Christmas Day and New Year's Day, but are afraid of hurting the feelings of those of the atheist persuasion, and those of non-Christian religions, by using any mention of Christmas, or Christ.
Don't be shy!
For atheists, Christmas is just another opportunity to sneer at what cannot be proven, and a paid holiday. It is a chance for them to be smug in their fancied rational superiority.
Members of other religions may admire Christians for our faith in God, and for the moral teachings of the Bible, while agreeing amongst themselves that we have got many important things wrong. They certainly would not think of ceasing their celebrations, as a sop to our feelings, nor should they!
In any case, nobody is being forced to be a Christian, or to celebrate the day.
Christmas Day celebrates the birth of Jesus and is the opportunity for people to believe in something far greater than themselves.
As such, it deserves the respect of all, especially advertisers seeking to extract the last available dollar from those equating their magnitude of love and sentiment with gift size.
Let there by no more hum buggery of vague, sly references to impending and past holidays!
So, Merry Christmas AND a Happy New Year to All!
Teacher's Union Propaganda
Apparently the Teacher’s Union thinks that a steady deluge of propaganda is the solution to make parents shut up about their children having to stay home.
The Union continues to insert their booklet “Why No School Today?” in my children’s memos from the school. I find the pidgin-English title insulting, not to mention the content.
No wonder some parents are confused; there is no logic to the Union point of view.
Consider the following:
Teachers are highly paid for working perhaps 9 months a year; have lots of free time and plenty of money to enjoy it with, yet they still feel the need to extort extra contractual days off (always on a weekend) from taxpayers during the Union “bargaining process”.
Teachers enjoy thinking of themselves as educated professionals, like lawyers, accountants, and engineers, yet still feel the need to take days off to learn how to teach better, and go on strike if their demands are unmet. Other professionals, however, do not go on strike, and keep their knowledge current through trade magazines and seminars, paid for by themselves. In fact, I expect a highly-paid professional to be at the top of his game; if I am not receiving the best advice possible, then I should be dealing with the person that he finds necessary to confer with.
The corollary would be, that anyone who finds it necessary to continuously learn how to teach, has never learned how to teach, should never have graduated from the teaching school, and remains incompetent.
Should we be paying grossly inflated salaries for incompetent teachers? Of course not.
The Union booklet claims that new ways of teaching require teacher proficiency in the new methods.
I would say, much more important is the desire to teach. When that is gone, get another job, or retire. Don’t hang about for your pension, just go. Try styling hair, or making pottery. Explore your creative side, if you have one. Become a full-time pedant in a volunteer group that is forced to listen to you, if you find teaching boring.
Further, how up to date do you have to be to teach elementary school children by rote?
The alphabet, arithmetic, and rules of grammar will not change, and children must learn the basics, in English, before they will be able to read and understand other concepts. Teachers should take the time to teach children the basics well, before involving them in foreign languages, bake sales, and peddling goods.
Teachers claim to be motivated by what is best for the children. Of course, every time that they go on strike they reveal themselves to be no better than tradesmen or government employees, with the same motivation: more pay for less work. This is perhaps understandable in tradesmen, but much less so in people claiming to be professionals.
On the last page of the booklet, the goals of the Union are stated as: to promote the cause of education, to raise the status of the teaching profession, and to promote the welfare of teachers”.
Because teachers are NOT confining themselves to teaching the things necessary for a child to advance academically (which is what school is for) like reading, writing, and arithmetic, and because teachers themselves were never taught proper spelling and grammar at school (to judge by letters home from teachers and principal alike), children will be behind when it comes to mastering difficult concepts later, never having being exposed to the vocabulary necessary to advance.
Promoting the cause of education would seem to mean more dues-paying Union-brand teachers; we must never forget that private, quality, Union-free education is available and must put pressure on the BC Government to give tax breaks to those not enrolling children in Unionized public schools.
Raising the status of teachers is a possibility, given their current low, strike-bound status, and their oft-perceived image as unreliable, overpaid daycare workers.
The final goal of promoting the welfare of teachers is one that the Union has achieved, through the methods of deserting classrooms and forcing parents to leave work to care for their children, and enforcing seniority over competence.
So, “Why No School Today?”? The answers are not to be found in Union propaganda!
The Union continues to insert their booklet “Why No School Today?” in my children’s memos from the school. I find the pidgin-English title insulting, not to mention the content.
No wonder some parents are confused; there is no logic to the Union point of view.
Consider the following:
Teachers are highly paid for working perhaps 9 months a year; have lots of free time and plenty of money to enjoy it with, yet they still feel the need to extort extra contractual days off (always on a weekend) from taxpayers during the Union “bargaining process”.
Teachers enjoy thinking of themselves as educated professionals, like lawyers, accountants, and engineers, yet still feel the need to take days off to learn how to teach better, and go on strike if their demands are unmet. Other professionals, however, do not go on strike, and keep their knowledge current through trade magazines and seminars, paid for by themselves. In fact, I expect a highly-paid professional to be at the top of his game; if I am not receiving the best advice possible, then I should be dealing with the person that he finds necessary to confer with.
The corollary would be, that anyone who finds it necessary to continuously learn how to teach, has never learned how to teach, should never have graduated from the teaching school, and remains incompetent.
Should we be paying grossly inflated salaries for incompetent teachers? Of course not.
The Union booklet claims that new ways of teaching require teacher proficiency in the new methods.
I would say, much more important is the desire to teach. When that is gone, get another job, or retire. Don’t hang about for your pension, just go. Try styling hair, or making pottery. Explore your creative side, if you have one. Become a full-time pedant in a volunteer group that is forced to listen to you, if you find teaching boring.
Further, how up to date do you have to be to teach elementary school children by rote?
The alphabet, arithmetic, and rules of grammar will not change, and children must learn the basics, in English, before they will be able to read and understand other concepts. Teachers should take the time to teach children the basics well, before involving them in foreign languages, bake sales, and peddling goods.
Teachers claim to be motivated by what is best for the children. Of course, every time that they go on strike they reveal themselves to be no better than tradesmen or government employees, with the same motivation: more pay for less work. This is perhaps understandable in tradesmen, but much less so in people claiming to be professionals.
On the last page of the booklet, the goals of the Union are stated as: to promote the cause of education, to raise the status of the teaching profession, and to promote the welfare of teachers”.
Because teachers are NOT confining themselves to teaching the things necessary for a child to advance academically (which is what school is for) like reading, writing, and arithmetic, and because teachers themselves were never taught proper spelling and grammar at school (to judge by letters home from teachers and principal alike), children will be behind when it comes to mastering difficult concepts later, never having being exposed to the vocabulary necessary to advance.
Promoting the cause of education would seem to mean more dues-paying Union-brand teachers; we must never forget that private, quality, Union-free education is available and must put pressure on the BC Government to give tax breaks to those not enrolling children in Unionized public schools.
Raising the status of teachers is a possibility, given their current low, strike-bound status, and their oft-perceived image as unreliable, overpaid daycare workers.
The final goal of promoting the welfare of teachers is one that the Union has achieved, through the methods of deserting classrooms and forcing parents to leave work to care for their children, and enforcing seniority over competence.
So, “Why No School Today?”? The answers are not to be found in Union propaganda!
No Rules
The other day I saw a sign that said “NO RULES”.
I like to think that “YES” rules.
Or “PERHAPS”.
So, the front of MY T-shirt reads “PERHAPS RULES”.
And the back reads “PERHAPS NOT”.
I should run for political office. Try to pin ME down, you swine.
I got so disgusted with the lame slogans on the sweat shirts and pants that I see that I modified them.
Yours may read “B.U.M.” I stitch in “F.O.R.K” below it.
Well, if you want people to look at your B.U.M., this will do it.
And it’s a great conversation starter at the gym or supermarket, as well!
If yours is FILA, I have a BOOBA for you.
So, Wal-Mart has come to town and the store is packed with shoppers. One local scribe is chortling that the unions will be signing up the staff soon. This should lead to either short-term negligible gains for the downtrodden working-class brothers and sisters, or a possible shutdown of the store. After all, Wal-Mart recently left South Korea and Germany, closing down dozens of stores. I imagine that the local scribe would be happy with either scenario.
In a similar vein, workers at Extra Foods decided to go back to work. At $22 per hour, they’re getting almost $6 per hour more than the top rate that housekeepers get in Whistler, and they’re demanding $2 per hour more!
I say, don’t let these evil employers crush you! Open your own businesses! Open that after-hours brain-surgery clinic or off-leash Rottweiler amusement park! Use that Grade 12 education to be all that you can be! Quit and see what the real market for your skills is!
Don’t worry, I think that the majority of us, as in Europe, can pack our own groceries. Heck, we can even scan them! To save 25% from my grocery bill, I’d be pleased to see you flex your wings and try your creative side. Don’t let the door hit you on the B.U.M. on the way out!
I like to think that “YES” rules.
Or “PERHAPS”.
So, the front of MY T-shirt reads “PERHAPS RULES”.
And the back reads “PERHAPS NOT”.
I should run for political office. Try to pin ME down, you swine.
I got so disgusted with the lame slogans on the sweat shirts and pants that I see that I modified them.
Yours may read “B.U.M.” I stitch in “F.O.R.K” below it.
Well, if you want people to look at your B.U.M., this will do it.
And it’s a great conversation starter at the gym or supermarket, as well!
If yours is FILA, I have a BOOBA for you.
So, Wal-Mart has come to town and the store is packed with shoppers. One local scribe is chortling that the unions will be signing up the staff soon. This should lead to either short-term negligible gains for the downtrodden working-class brothers and sisters, or a possible shutdown of the store. After all, Wal-Mart recently left South Korea and Germany, closing down dozens of stores. I imagine that the local scribe would be happy with either scenario.
In a similar vein, workers at Extra Foods decided to go back to work. At $22 per hour, they’re getting almost $6 per hour more than the top rate that housekeepers get in Whistler, and they’re demanding $2 per hour more!
I say, don’t let these evil employers crush you! Open your own businesses! Open that after-hours brain-surgery clinic or off-leash Rottweiler amusement park! Use that Grade 12 education to be all that you can be! Quit and see what the real market for your skills is!
Don’t worry, I think that the majority of us, as in Europe, can pack our own groceries. Heck, we can even scan them! To save 25% from my grocery bill, I’d be pleased to see you flex your wings and try your creative side. Don’t let the door hit you on the B.U.M. on the way out!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
