You are currently browsing the monthly archive for October 2019.
When people talk about how capitalism raises the tide for all boats my skepticism level begins to slowly creep upward. One must be careful when it comes to describing capitalism as panacea for the world and the world’s poor. from Counterpunch takes aim at a few of the more atrocious lies that the ardent defender of Capital put forth.
“Neoliberals love to quote the World Bank’s rosy statistics about capitalism lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty. Unfortunately, those statistics are skewed and manipulated to the point of outright prevarication, as Seth Donnelly demonstrates in his new book, “The Lie of Global Prosperity.” He quotes a breathless World Bank press release, “soon 90 percent of the world’s population will live on $1.90 a day or more.” No matter that translated into local currency at local prices, in many places that $1.90 per day purchases the equivalent of 30 cents a day or that $1.90 per day means the pauperization of billions – for as Donnelly shows, a truer metric of avoiding desperate poverty is over $5 per day. If that far more honest measure is applied, 80 percent of South Asians and sub-Saharan Africans are, Donnelly explains, horribly impoverished. Even more disturbing, achieving a 70-year life expectancy requires $7.40 a day, something the world’s cold and pampered capitalists will certainly not shell out or even allow for the billions of wretchedly poor.
Best exemplifying the World Bank’s ideologically biased poverty measures – biased to glorify capitalism – is how it uses statistics about China. “The free health care, education and food that people received in Mao’s China do not enter into the calculation. As a result, Chinese people, who achieved new levels of food security and saw their life expectancy double in this [Mao’s] period were found to be on the whole ‘extremely poor’…the Chinese only ceased to be ‘extremely poor’ once they lost their collective lands, food rations and medical care and began making iphones and other export goods under atrocious conditions.”
I’ve been hearing more about ‘Cancel Culture’ and recently found this article by Meghan Murphy giving her ideas on what Cancel Culture is and how it is affecting the popular discourse.
It would seem that the built in distance within Social Media has given rise to some deleterious effects that are working their way through the larger culture outside of social media. The willingness to engage with others that do hold your opinions is diminishing and while the tendency to punitively ostracize others is on the rise. The overall effect is to coarsen discourse and make communicating ideas much more difficult.
“Cancel culture” is a sort of addiction: the addict — outraged members of the public demanding someone’s humiliation and “cancellation” — gets a high, but only temporarily, and the desire creeps back once again and must be fed.
Yet this type of public ostracism is not exactly like other addictions — food, drugs, pornography, shopping or gambling – which involve private behaviours, albeit connected to social problems. Most addictions are about an individual escaping from some kind of pain or trying to fill an endless hole inside of them. Cancel culture is very much about public behaviour — a display of anger, power and virtue — as well as the self-loathing and emptiness in all addictions.
No healthy, secure person invests that much time and energy into destroying other people’s lives. No happy, fulfilled human enjoys seeing others – strangers – ruined, ostracised and vilified. Unless we are purely targeting violent, evil or dangerous individuals… but, of course, this is almost never the case. We target comedians, politicians, writers, friends, fellow activists, co-workers and former comrades. In a terrified frenzy, we look for any excuse — a verbal blunder, a politically incorrect opinion, a tacky 20-year-old Aladdin costume…
While Justin Trudeau — the wokest of leaders — may well be many things, I don’t believe he is a racist. No one does. While black or brownface is indeed racist, Trudeau’s poor costume choices two decades ago do not reflect who he is today: a boring, phony, political coward.
Plenty of things that seemed acceptable or funny 20 years ago are not today. And people change. I mean, 20 years ago, I was wearing a white pleather mini skirt and a mesh animal print tank top, reciting every lyric to “I’m a player”. And I just cannot wait for someone to dredge up all of our old Halloween costumes. (I must have co-opted dominatrix culture at least three years in a row. All you Pocahontases better have your CVs ready.
The worst thing about cancel culture is not even its attacks on others – it’s that the whole thing is a lie. I don’t believe that anyone thought, deep down, that they were better than Justine Sacco who infamously lost her job for a tweet. They just didn’t make the mistake of trying to be funny on Twitter, in a culture that would prefer not to take a joke.
I don’t believe that anyone thinks Kevin Hart is a homophobe, or that Al Franken is a dangerous predator. And I definitely don’t believe they think Sarah Silverman is a racist.
Cancel culture doesn’t actually want accountability. It doesn’t want an apology. It doesn’t want a conversation. It doesn’t even want the world to be safe from truly dangerous people or ideas. What it wants is to feel that boot on someone else’s neck – perhaps in order to avoid the boot itself.
What is the purpose, after all, of demanding an apology, only to say the apology isn’t good enough? (And the apology is never good enough.) What is the point of saying you want accountability, when no redemption is available? Do we want change or do we want flagellation?
The truth is that many people get off on sadistic, herd-like practices that thrive on platforms like Twitter. Who can be the angriest, the most righteous, and the most devout in their hatred of the Wrong? Who would Never Do Such A Thing, never mind think it?
I don’t think racist or homophobic comments are harmless, but I do think that we prefer punishment over change. And if we truly wanted people to understand other’s hurt and to change their behaviour, we wouldn’t write them off for life.”
Hey folks, it’s election time. Your MP has to pretend harder that they are listening the people they supposedly represent. Take the time and send this in. Courtesy of We The Females.
Dear <MP’s Name>
I am writing as a voter in your riding who supports human rights for all Canadians and with specific concerns about the impact of Bill C16 on women’s sex-based rights.
Bill C16 was enacted in Parliament in 2017 to amend the Canadian Human Rights Code and the Canadian Criminal Code in order to provide protection for the transgendered. Unfortunately, C16 does not explicitly protect transgendered individuals but instead protects “gender identity” and gender expression”, neither of which are given precise legal definitions but are instead subjective categories unlike biological sex.
Although sex remains as a separate protected characteristic, the enactment of Bill C16 has led to a massive conflation of sex and gender identity/expression (many women have found that to even discuss their sex based rights as separately protected from gender identity and gender expression leads to accusations of transphobia and bigotry) with the result that, currently in Canada, a women’s status is no longer based in objective biology but on a subjective “gender identity” and/or “gender expression”.
This is misogynistic and continues to have profound implications for women’s’ sex-based rights including the right to sex segregated spaces and activities including prisons, abuse and rape crisis centres, elder care facilities and sports and athletic opportunities.
Brief examples regarding Statistics Canada and the Correctional Service of Canada follow:
Statistics Canada
As a direct result of C16, Statistics Canada “has revised the variable “sex of a person” as well as creating a new variable “gender of a person”.
This means that but for an extremely limited purpose, data collection and analysis from Stats Canada is based on the “gender of a person” not their biological sex.
One of the most egregious examples of this obfuscation is that universal crime statistics in Canada are no longer collected based on sex but instead on gender identity. This has been confirmed by the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs and now results in crime committed by biological males who identify as transgendered falsely being recorded as committed by female Canadians.
Changes such as these also lead directly to wrongheaded policies like the recent announcement by OPP that they will no longer publicly report the sex or gender of either perpetrators of crimes or their victims. All at a time when violence against biological women is epidemic in Canada!
Corrections Canada
On January 9, 2017 Corrections Canada announced a policy for transgender inmates detailing that: “Pre-operative male to female offenders with gender dysphoria will be held in men’s institutions and pre-operative female to male offenders with gender dysphoria will be held in women’s institutions”. This policy was abruptly reversed only days later, on January 13th, 2017, following an off the cuff comment by Justin Trudeau at a town hall. As a result, biologically male inmates (both post and pre-operative) are being housed in female facilities, some with mother/child units.
In response to an ATIP, Corrections Canada has advised that between June 1, 2017 and December 3, 2018, 8 biological males who identify as transgendered were transferred to the women’s system. 7 of the 8 were convicted of violent crimes including murder and sexual assault. The total population of transgendered males in female facilities remains unknown.
Female inmates (who are disproportionally aboriginal, have previously been subjected to violence/abuse and are overwhelmingly convicted of nonviolent crimes) are being housed with male transgendered inmates such as:
-
Madilyn (formerly Matthew) Harks who was convicted of sexually assaulting girls under the age of eight three times and has been accused of harassment and assaulting female inmates while in custody. Current location unknown but thought to be held at the Fraser Valley Women’s Institute which contains a mother and child unit
-
Tara Desousa (formerly Adam Labucan), a dangerous offender convicted of sexually assaulting a three-month-old baby. While in custody, Desousa assaulted female inmates and a female correctional officer. Currently held at the Fraser Valley Women’s Institute which contains a mother and child unit
With the information I have provided in mind, please let me know your thoughts and position on the points below. Your response will be a very important consideration in my choice of candidate on October 21:
-
What is your position on women sex based human rights as separate from gender identity/expression?
-
Do you support the rights of women to organize, provide and receive services based on biological sex as separate from gender identity/expression?
-
Do you support the collection of date for social statistics programs (including crime stats) based on biological sex as separate from gender identity/expression?
-
What specific steps will you take to support and promote women’s sex-based rights including the right to organize, provide and receive services as separate from gender identity/expression?
Thank-you for earliest response,
<Your Name>
It is sad to see people who are so far out to lunch they would rather ban Meghan Murphy from the Toronto Public Library than make an argument against her. This bullshit is happening in Canada and it fucking sucks.
The woke twitter outrage is real. 
Next, the baseless accusation of Transphobia. Expect this particular scarlet epithet to be hurled when it is clear that people won’t sit down, shut-up and blithely accept the unreality that is gender-self id and transactivist ideology. The name calling, not engaging with arguments is par for the course, and unsurprisingly happens here as well.

When insults don’t work, threatening violence is the next step as always. Because when your arguments are shit, your playbook is limited. Name calling, harassment and violence are the standards at work here.

Oh, I forgot about deplatforming, suggested so kindly here by Mr Male Adam Pottle. Because we certainly cannot have those uppity women speaking about topics that directly affect them and their sex based rights and protections. That sort of speech is dangerous (it threatens the patriarchal status quo) and should not be allowed.

It is really a shit show, but there are few people on the thread that are invested in the basic principles of a free and democratic society that are speaking out against the bullshit that is identity politics. Thank heavens not all of us have lost our way.

Sweet jebus cooking crab-cakes: This is the “LITERAL VIOLENCE AND HATRED” being discussed – males are not females, pretending males are females adversely impacts the sex based rights of females, and sexist stereotypes are bad. All apparently hatespeech. This is lunacy and needs to stop. Women speaking out defending their rights, boundaries, and safety is NOT hatespeech, but rather should be encouraged and discussed.
All of the accusations screenshotted above are typical of what happens when discussing things with the Woke. You have to wade through fields of straw and thought terminating cliches before you can even start to have a reasonable discussion. The calls for ‘cancelling’ and ‘deplatforming’ are bullshit of the highest order, I won’t stand for it.
An unhappy view of what probably is to come as we come to terms with notion that the institutions in our societies can no longer adequately serve the needs of the people.
“Here, then, is a very partial listing of some of the most important of those signals then readily available to anyone bothering to pay attention. On the eve of the Great Reckoning, however, they were generally treated as mere curiosities or matters of limited urgency — problems to be deferred to a later, more congenial moment.
Item: The reality of climate change was now indisputable. All that remained in question was how rapidly it would occur and the extent (and again rapidity) of the devastation that it would ultimately inflict.
Item: Despite everything that was then known about the dangers of further carbon emissions, the major atmospheric contributor to global warming, they only continued to increase, despite the myriad conferences and agreements intended to curb them. (U.S. carbon emissions, in particular, were still rising then, and global emissions were expected to rise by record or near-record amounts as 2019 began.)
Item: The polar icecap was disappearing, with scientists reporting that it had melted more in just 20 years than in the previous 10,000. This, in turn, meant that sea levels would continue to rise at record rates, posing an increasing threat to coastal cities.
Item:Deforestation and desertification were occurring at an alarming rate.
Item: Approximately eight million metric tons of plastic were seeping into the world’s oceans each year, from the ingestion of which vast numbers of seabirds, fish, and marine mammals were dying annually. Payback would come in the form of microplastics contained in seafood consumed by humans.
Item: With China and other Asian countries increasingly refusing to accept American recyclables, municipalities in the United States found themselves overwhelmed by accumulations of discarded glass, plastic, metal, cardboard, and paper. That year, the complete breakdown of the global recycling system already loomed as a possibility.
Item: Worldwide bird and insect populations were plummeting. In other words, the Sixth Mass Extinction had begun.
All of these fall into the category of what we recognize today as planetary issues of existential importance. But even in 2019 there were other matters of less than planetary significance that ought to have functioned as a wake-up call. Among them were:
Item: With the federal government demonstrably unable to secure U.S. borders, immigration authorities were seizing hundreds of thousands of migrants annually. By 2019, the Trump administration was confining significant numbers of those migrants, including small children, in what were, in effect, concentration camps.
Item: Cybercrime had become a major growth industry, on track to rake in $6 trillion annually by 2021. Hackers were already demonstrating the ability to hold large American cities hostage and the authorities proved incapable of catching up.
Item: With the three richest Americans — Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet — controlling more wealth than the bottom 50% of the entire population, the United States had become a full-fledged oligarchy. While politicians occasionally expressed their dismay about this reality, prior to 2019 it was widely tolerated.
Item: As measured by roads, bridges, dams, or public transportation systems, the nation’s infrastructure was strikingly inferior to what it had been a half-century earlier. (By 2019, China, for instance, had built more than 19,000 miles of high-speed rail; the U.S., not one.) Agreement that this was a problem that needed fixing was universal; corrective action (and government financing), however, was not forthcoming.
Item: Military spending in constant dollars exceeded what it had been at the height of the Cold War when the country’s main adversary, the Soviet Union, had a large army with up-to-date equipment and an arsenal of nuclear weapons. In 2019, Iran, the country’s most likely adversary, had a modest army and no nuclear weapons.
Item: Incivility, rudeness, bullying, and general nastiness had become rampant, while the White House, once the site of solemn ceremony, deliberation, and decision, played host to politically divisive shouting matches and verbal brawls.
To say that Americans were oblivious to such matters would be inaccurate. Some were, for instance, considering a ban on plastic straws. Yet taken as a whole, the many indications of systemic and even planetary dysfunction received infinitely less popular attention than the pregnancies of British royals, the antics of the justifiably forgotten Kardashian clan, or fantasy football, a briefly popular early twenty-first century fad.
Of course, decades later, viewed with the benefit of hindsight, the implications of these various trends and data points seem painfully clear: the dominant ideological abstraction of late postmodernity — liberal democratic capitalism — was rapidly failing or had simply become irrelevant to the challenges facing the United States and the human species as a whole. To employ another then-popular phrase, liberal democratic capitalism had become an expression of “fake news,” a scam sold to the many for the benefit of the privileged few.
“Toward the end of an age,” historian John Lukacs (1924-2019) once observed, “more and more people lose faith in their institutions and finally they abandon their belief that these institutions might still be reformed from within.” Lukacs wrote those words in 1970, but they aptly described the situation that had come to exist in that turning-point year of 2019.”
Ouch.
Awkward.





Your opinions…