My liberal rant (cont.), or a half-assed explanation of why banning Canada Day on Dalhousie University is stupid.

I would have to admit that the post I had written yesterday, titled creatively “My liberal rant,” had as little reason in it as many extreme liberals’ minds. So here in this post, I will try to explain why banning Canada Day in Dalhousie University is utterly stupid.

First, if they truly believe in supporting Aboriginals, then why don’t they go out and do something, perhaps fundraising, that actually benefits these Indigenous people who have been, as they call it, “oppressed” by Canada? Sure, our history have been littered with residential schools and atrocities far greater than what extreme liberals have done to our world today. That doesn’t warrant them the right to trash a national Canadian holiday because of some atrocity that has relatively been resolved by the Canadian government. Perhaps, their goal was to exploit their positions of power and bring awareness. But my question to them is the same for any other protester: bring awareness to what?—to the fact that they are protesting, or to the fact they are not aware of the progress the Canadian government has attained towards a healthier relationship?

The Facebook post also calls out Canada day for being an “act of ongoing colonialism.” How can colonialism still exist if Aboriginals are granted the same rights as every single white person? How can Aboriginals still suffer from so-called “ongoing colonialism” if they are offered benefits no one else has? Sure, people can complain all they want about how the Canadian masses are uninformed about Canada’s past atrocities and who came to North America first. These masses are comprised of immigrants and those who have not gone through the recent reformed K-12 education system. They were rather educated when the government was still unshameful of its actions on Aboriginals. Canada’s education system today, however, consists of learning about all of Canada’s history including the dark sides, and meeting with Aboriginal leaders to learn first-hand of these experiences. My answer to the liberals still complaining about the “uneducated masses?” Just wait for the students who will have gone through the reformed education system to graduate. In the meanwhile, please, don’t do anything too stupid while these students are being informed about the “dark side of Canadian history,”

Oh…wait

My liberal rant

 

Time and time again, we keep hearing stories of diehard feminists shouting incomprehensible profanities and extreme liberals protesting just for the sake of protesting. And while I consider myself a liberal (centre-left to be exact), these stupid folks are smearing the face of an otherwise brilliant ideology with their giant mouths and infinitesimal intelligence.

 

But these are just an introduction to what has happened on Canada’s East Coast. If extreme feminists and pointless protests are rated 10 on the one to ten scale of absurdity (10 being the most), then this recent event completely goes off the at light speed towards infinity. Yes—what I will tell you will probably be the stupidest thing you will hear.

 

3 weeks ago, the Dalhousie Student Union has decided to not celebrate Canada Day or its 150th birthday, citing that Canada Day was “oppressive” and “an act of ongoing colonialism.” The entirety of their Facebook post (Yes, they used Facebook to announce their absurd decision) goes like this.

 

Unlearn 150!

We recognize that Canada Day and the Canada 150 celebrations are an act of ongoing colonialism that glorifies continued theft from, and disenfranchisement of, the indigenous peoples of Turtle Island (Canada).

Here in K’jipuktuk (Halifax) we study work and live on unceded and unsurrendered Mi’kmaq territory. Mi’kma’ki is the traditional territory of the Mi’Kmaq people, who have lived on this land for over 13,000 years.

We stand in solidarity with indigenous students and communities. We are committed to challenging and unlearning the narrative of Canada 150 and decolonizing education.

#Unlearn150

 

Here, they claim that Canada Day and its 150th birthday celebrations are somehow also celebrating colonialism and “continued theft from…the indigenous peoples of Turtle Island.” What utter stupidity is this? This is so stupid that its stupidity cannot be expressed in just 26 characters of the English alphabet.

 

Canada Day is simply a national day of Canada, nothing else. Even kids can understand it, Canada Day and its 150th birthday is extremely simple: a celebration of Canada. It is certainly not, however, some complicated nonsense about “colonialism” and “decolonizing education.” What in the actual world are they talking about here!
As these liberals take dumbassery to the extreme, the logical and normal folks in Canada have no choice but to sit and watch in vain as these self-entitled college students think protecting Native American rights by shutting down Canada Day is so cool. You know what, I change my mind. I thank Dalhousie Student Union for existing. Why? Because it keeps the extremist liberal who thought of the clever idea to categorize Canada Day as supporting the “continued theft” of Indigenous people away from the refuge of logic and mankind. In fact, if the sole purpose of Dalhousie Student Union was to occupy these students so they don’t spread their flawed logic (oh wait. Do they have any?) and ban holidays we all love, then the student union has done its job well.

Political ads are killing our democracy

rncadcrookedhillary

 

An American family sits, their eyes glued to their television screen.

Hillary Clinton failed every single time as Secretary of State. Now, she wants to be president. Don’t let her fail us again. Vote Republican on November 8, 2016.”

“‘ I’d look right in that ugly face of her, she’s a slog. She’s a pig.’ …  Is this the president we want for our daughters? Vote Democrat on November 8, 2016.”

As the next commercial break comes, the whole cycle of attack ads repeat. On and on again. Day and night, every single day. So if the average American watches about 5 hours of television per day, everyday, then they must be exposed to hundreds of political ads that attack a party everyday. What does this constant exposure to an echo chamber of negativity and chaos do to any average American? It makes them cynical, confused, and less likely to vote. In fact, statistics have shown that after attack ads became popular starting in 1964, voter turnout has steadily decreased. Correlation does not imply causation, you say? Studies conducted by Stanford University concluded that voter turnout decreased directly because of television attack ads, citing that attack ads make people cynical and less likely to vote.

 

Those were only statistics accounting from the 1960s to the mid-2000s. With the recent rise in incivility and stronger attack ads in the recent 2016 election, however, voter turnout will likely drop even further. Perhaps, this incivility crisis in television and a constant barrage of negative political ads might do enough damage to even jeopardize our democracy. Already armed with the lack of accurate information, television might even further Americans’ skepticism of their politicians and will vote for whoever drowns the other out in terms of TV advertisements. Will this really be the staple of our democracy?—drowning the other candidate’s voice with sensationalist and populist statements?

The War on Drugs

In June 1971, Richard Nixon declared a war on a disease that had plagued over 2 million Americans, and like cancer, this disease stems from a betrayal of one’s own body. President Nixon had aggrandized this disease as “public enemy number one,” and smeared the victims of it as criminals. The disease is not one that is met with compassion and sympathy. President Nixon has tainted this disease as a crime, its victims as criminals, and its symptoms as the epitome of failure. This disease is drug abuse.

Nixon’s strategy was simple: make the population hate something and capitalize on that hate to get votes. He went on national television programs and made grand speeches declaring to the world of the dangers of drug abuse and how it rots American cities. Pouring vials upon vials of fear into Americans’ minds were just the first step in his strategy to gain higher approval from the public, and ultimately, as an excuse to jail up minorities. The next step was to fix the problem he had planted in the public’s mind, by deploying police on the “drug-infested” streets of urban cities and tightening up laws around drug usage.

The American population had shifted views from supporting a white supremacy to now condemning racism. Nixon knew this, so he just criminalized something that was associated with minority groups and hippies: drugs. In fact, Nixon’s campaign manager also admitted, “We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities.”

This is no small accident long forgotten in the past, however, as it still affects many minority groups to this day. The failing war on drugs also costs American taxpayers $51 billion dollars and more, as the prison population explodes because of this strict policing. In a nation of crumbling bridges and rotting infrastructure, spending $51 billion to increase our population size (resulting in more costs) and destroy communities is a path towards disaster.

CNN President regrets giving Donald Trump too much airtime, “because you never knew what he would say, there was an attraction to put those on air.”

TV with its greater arsenal of tools would have brought voters and politicians closer. Viewership and profits skyrocketed—televised presidential debates allowed people to see who they were voting for, which was previously impossible with newspapers. This golden period for television was short lived, however, as TV stations had to replace “boring,” albeit useful, political news with entertainment programming to garner profits.

When TV started broadcasting presidential debates and other “infotainment” programs, voter turnout percentage has decreased steadily (Gentzkow, 2006). While this transformation of TV might just be passed off as inevitable corporate greed, the unwelcome emphasis on scandals and drama leads to a greater problem than corporate profits. It is a weakening of democracy.

As Americans sit hopelessly in an echo chamber of scandals and drama of politicians, they are forced to think that politics is like Hollywood: littered with scandals, mishaps, and drama. This is the most likely reason for decreased voter turnout: conflicting news stories all competing for attention. They make Americans cynical and deters them from voting—why would they even want to vote between 2 candidates shown in the unfavorable spotlight of drama and scandals?

The concept of the “good child”

Every family in the world, regardless of culture and race, have an analogous definition of its own “good child.” He sweeps the floors properly, cleans the dishes after dinner, washes his hands before eating, and always follows his parents instructions without question. The “good child” bypasses the distinct qualities that make childhood so hard for the parents: screams, fights, bruises, and mischief. They are the forefront of their parents’ parenting egos, the envies of those who have a “normal” mischievous child, and are generally less of a pain in the arse to deal with. Looking at the big picture, however, we realize the “good child,” when he grows up, is incompetent to thrive in the real world. He is used to receiving clear, simple instructions and he follows them. While helpful as a child, the ability to follow instructions doesn’t help them become successful later on.

The good child has learned to never question his parents’ instructions. What will he do once he grows up and becomes an adult? He never questions the actions of his government. What results, if the whole population is like him, is the collapse of our democracy into a dictatorship.

Political polarization.

Article.

I had just read this article on the Times, showing just how much Republicans and Democrats hate each other. This would seem like a trivial, unavoidable problem of human nature: we hate people who think different than we do. Upon looking at the bigger picture, however, we begin to see that this inevitable hatred grows to a engulfs our democracy, rendering the qualities that make it so great useless.

While some of human nature contributes to the grinding hatred between the 2 parties, this “American Plague” still was the result of the media’s decision to place money above democracy. Mainstream media adds fuel to the fire by pouring vials of fear into their viewers’ minds. Muslims. ISIS. Terrorists. Murders. Scandals. What happens to their minds after prolonged exposure to an echo chamber of fear? They seek refuge in the groups they belong to and become cynical about politicians and the “opposing side.” It makes sense—exposure to a constant barrage of negativity makes people submerge to their enclaves to confirm their beliefs. They seek some confirmation of their beliefs after they have been bombarded with dizzying flashes of negative news.

The root of the problem of political polarisation comes from people’s desire to confirm their beliefs. They become less open to other opinions and are “blindly loyal” to the groups they are in. People are then, less likely to read news from opposite sides of the political spectrum, and automatically will deafen their ears to someone with different political viewpoints. This is not democracy. Democracy is open-minded critical discussion of ideas. It is not sinking into our own enclaves of confirmation. Being told by someone else that you are right naturally feels good, but it completely invalidates our democracy. It depends on a willingness to cooperate even when we share different viewpoints. The media discourages this by dumping vials of fear.

Newspapers and TV have long been considered the “right-hand of democracy,” and the “Fourth Estate of government,” but it rather is disappointing to see the right hand of our democracy smeared and trodden with corporate values. They need to know that democracy is not about choosing sides and they need to stop discouraging people from blindly choosing sides. Democracy is about a compromise, a strong determination not to sink back into our own enclaves and instead come out with an open mouth, and an open mind.

NYT’s Maggie Haberman: Clinton’s Secretary of Propaganda? Strategy document reveals a “very good relationship [with Haberman]” and how HRC campaign has “never been disappointed.”

Maggie Haberman is well-respected among journalists and was nominated for multiple journalism awards, yet she willingly breaks the fundamental rule that upholds all of journalism culture. She was loyal to a politician. The SPJ’s code of ethics state journalists should “act independently…avoid political and other outside activities that compromise integrity….” The CAJ’s code of ethics state “ Editorial boards…endorse political candidates or political causes. Reporters do not.” When Maggie Haberman violates the core ideal of journalism, reporting independently, she cannot call herself the “watchdog of politics.” She is the lapdog of politicians.

Donation

If you would like to donate, please visit the website below, there will be a button to donate via PayPal. All of the money will go to various hospitals and donating societies.

The website is under construction, so everything may not look as good. Currently, all the funds will go to a Vietnamese hospital, but that will soon change as we settle in.

Link:vietnamhelps.blogspot.com