Saturday, December 29, 2007
Welcome to my blog!
Mehdi
I have two main problems with the Pickton verdict. With two of the victims, other men's DNA was found in the remains of their teeth NOT Willie Pickton's. The obvious interpretation is those girls were snuffed in a forced oral sex act, and the killer was not Willie Pickton. It is plain unfair to convict Pickton on those two counts.
With the woman whom the witness Ellingsen testified she saw being butchered by Willie Pickton, none of her remains have been found. How can anyone be charged with murder when there is no corpse to prove the missing person is dead? With no corpse, it needs dozens of impeccable witnesses totally united on every point of time, place and manner of death to convict for murder, not the tainted and unreliable testimony of one witness.
It's the classic philosophic conundrum: 'Alcibiades the Cretan says all Cretans are liars!' Where does that leave you? It's a curiosity! And the Ellingsen testimony was similar. What credence can you attach to a witness who says she saw an acquaintance being butchered, and just took drug money from the butcher: She did not go to the police. Her word is worthless. If she saw a girl being butchered, she should be jailed 10 years for failing to report it. If she was lying, she gets 3 years for perjury. Maybe that'll shake the truth out of her.
Al Capone was jailed for life on a charge of income tax evasion. He could not be convicted of murder. We just have to be satisfied with that. We can't play fast and loose with the law for the sake of closure. If Pickton were found guilty on 2 or 3 counts of manslaughter, he would still go to jail.
Killers, and very nasty people, are still out there.
* * * *
Happy New Year Everyone!
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Bangs for the Buck!
You may have noticed I have a rather exalted notion of the place of a homemaker allowance in the scheme of things. We no longer believe in religion as a society, so to a considerable degree, we religiously believe in our entitlements. Health care and education, disability and old age pensions, unemployment insurance, holidays and job safety: These define us as people. And a homemaker allowance screams what kind of people we want to be, in what kind of world.
We work~not to serve the corporations~but to have nice homes. Family and home are the final end of our efforts, for most people. Well, Let's go for it! A home has to be made by somebody~Let's call them homemakers~and give them an allowance. Let's get our priorities straight. For the last forty years, every effort has been made to get women into the workforce, leaving one-income couples to fend for themselves, treated with benign neglect and subject to petty harrassment. Well, let's facilitate breadwinner and homemaker couples, and treat working couples to benign harrassment.
Promoting the one involves marginalising the other. We can't have it both ways. So an entire thought world starts to take shape around a homemaker allowance.
* Assume $300 a month for a basic homemaker with increments for any children or invalids they care for.
* Cancel survivor's pensions for working spouses to pay for it.
* Child allowances to be folded into the homemaker allowance: It is madness giving child allowances to working couples. We don't want working couples, so why subsidise them?
* Spousal inheritance rights to be limited in future to breadwinners and homemakers: the meaningful essence of a marriage.
* Breadwinners to have priority in the workforce: working couples coming last: and singles in between.
* Homemakers focussed on part-time jobs with no benefits: They're covered by their breadwinners'.
* No more talk about subsidised daycare: usually provided by homemakers.
* No more full-wage govt jobs to single girls. It's a policy of national suicide: desexing our young women.
* Stop encouraging women to expect equal representation anywhere. Women's equality is not to be confused with racial equality.
So we are looking at a radically reformed society, all on a voluntary basis. Nobody is obliged to take the allowance! But with millions of homemakers (mainly women of course) looking for part-time jobs with no need for benefits, the opportunities are golden. Quite how matters will shake down is anyone's guess: especially for single career women. They will be really scarce.
The economy cannot generate full-wage jobs for everyone. Young people go to school and live at home into their thirties. Employment conditions in the private service economy resemble peonage: Young people hold 2-3-4 jobs, on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, just to pay the rent! So the greater need is to allocate the few good jobs available on a rational basis i.e. one per family, let's say to the breadwinner.
Let's stop digging ourselves into a hole, and put more effort into getting out of it!
P.S. Happy Christmas, you all! I nearly forgot! And Hannukah and Ramadan, where appropriate. And let's not forget jolly old Saturn! He started it all. Remember?
We work~not to serve the corporations~but to have nice homes. Family and home are the final end of our efforts, for most people. Well, Let's go for it! A home has to be made by somebody~Let's call them homemakers~and give them an allowance. Let's get our priorities straight. For the last forty years, every effort has been made to get women into the workforce, leaving one-income couples to fend for themselves, treated with benign neglect and subject to petty harrassment. Well, let's facilitate breadwinner and homemaker couples, and treat working couples to benign harrassment.
Promoting the one involves marginalising the other. We can't have it both ways. So an entire thought world starts to take shape around a homemaker allowance.
* Assume $300 a month for a basic homemaker with increments for any children or invalids they care for.
* Cancel survivor's pensions for working spouses to pay for it.
* Child allowances to be folded into the homemaker allowance: It is madness giving child allowances to working couples. We don't want working couples, so why subsidise them?
* Spousal inheritance rights to be limited in future to breadwinners and homemakers: the meaningful essence of a marriage.
* Breadwinners to have priority in the workforce: working couples coming last: and singles in between.
* Homemakers focussed on part-time jobs with no benefits: They're covered by their breadwinners'.
* No more talk about subsidised daycare: usually provided by homemakers.
* No more full-wage govt jobs to single girls. It's a policy of national suicide: desexing our young women.
* Stop encouraging women to expect equal representation anywhere. Women's equality is not to be confused with racial equality.
So we are looking at a radically reformed society, all on a voluntary basis. Nobody is obliged to take the allowance! But with millions of homemakers (mainly women of course) looking for part-time jobs with no need for benefits, the opportunities are golden. Quite how matters will shake down is anyone's guess: especially for single career women. They will be really scarce.
The economy cannot generate full-wage jobs for everyone. Young people go to school and live at home into their thirties. Employment conditions in the private service economy resemble peonage: Young people hold 2-3-4 jobs, on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, just to pay the rent! So the greater need is to allocate the few good jobs available on a rational basis i.e. one per family, let's say to the breadwinner.
Let's stop digging ourselves into a hole, and put more effort into getting out of it!
P.S. Happy Christmas, you all! I nearly forgot! And Hannukah and Ramadan, where appropriate. And let's not forget jolly old Saturn! He started it all. Remember?
Saturday, December 8, 2007
The Feminist Revolution
Any attempt at separating the sheep from the goats is resisted by the goats. I want a homemaker allowance to validate middle class society. The media disallow any mention of the concept. I want an honest, smooth-running society: The goats want a free ride. And the sheep want to bleat.
The Feminist revolution defines the terms of our existence: Winners and Losers
a) Feminism was good for property values: Working couples pushed up the price of housing
b) Feminism undermined union power: Fighting men cannot fight women
c) Feminism was good for government workers: They could double up
d) Feminism was good for pensioners: They could get double pensions
e) Feminism was good for management: a heirarchy of mixed humans needs more management than a team of men
f) Feminism empowered groupies and no-lives, and immobilised couples with children
The big winners were management and rich property owners. Pensioners and govt workers were bought off. Ordinary middle class homeowners marked time. Anyone not in the property market, and future generations, lost heavily. But the really big losers were couples wanting good homes for their children.
WOMEN'S EQUALITY AND RACIAL EQUALITY
Let's say Feminism is 90% scam and 10% feeble-mindedness. (Hey, It's Christmas, OK!) A retard could honestly confuse women's equality with racial equality.
The key difference is that races are whole populations while men and women women are parts of a population.
black people = white people
black men = white men
black women = white women
black children = white children
It is loonie tunes to suggest black women should have parity with white children; or black men with black children; or white women with white men.
Who are valuable govt jobs to go to? This is the bottom line. Racially disadvantaged men or privileged women? Racist white men would rather govt jobs go to privileged white women than to disadvantaged black men. When Feminists demand more firefighters should be women, I say again, they are performing the base role of scab for the most nauseating element imaginable. (Keep calm uncle! It's Christmas!)
A black man with a wife and kids to support has to be able to bump a single white girl out of a govt job. That's self-evident. Carry on from there.
The solution has something to do with the ideal of completion: people realised to the fullest possible extent: individually and collectively. Equally fully-realised, racial groups would have similar occupational/wealth structures. Fully-realised, men and women would have different structures: Most women would be homemakers with part-time jobs, and most men would be breadwinners with full-time jobs. That is the main sense in which women are the equals of men. It just needs a little fine-tuning.
Female labour is still as generally socially-undesirable as child labour. Because a child or a woman can do a job is no reason for them to do it. They may be hurt by it. Let's focus on getting ourselves out of the hole, instead of digging ourselves deeper into it. We want a homemaker allowance. To be continued.
The Feminist revolution defines the terms of our existence: Winners and Losers
a) Feminism was good for property values: Working couples pushed up the price of housing
b) Feminism undermined union power: Fighting men cannot fight women
c) Feminism was good for government workers: They could double up
d) Feminism was good for pensioners: They could get double pensions
e) Feminism was good for management: a heirarchy of mixed humans needs more management than a team of men
f) Feminism empowered groupies and no-lives, and immobilised couples with children
The big winners were management and rich property owners. Pensioners and govt workers were bought off. Ordinary middle class homeowners marked time. Anyone not in the property market, and future generations, lost heavily. But the really big losers were couples wanting good homes for their children.
WOMEN'S EQUALITY AND RACIAL EQUALITY
Let's say Feminism is 90% scam and 10% feeble-mindedness. (Hey, It's Christmas, OK!) A retard could honestly confuse women's equality with racial equality.
The key difference is that races are whole populations while men and women women are parts of a population.
black people = white people
black men = white men
black women = white women
black children = white children
It is loonie tunes to suggest black women should have parity with white children; or black men with black children; or white women with white men.
Who are valuable govt jobs to go to? This is the bottom line. Racially disadvantaged men or privileged women? Racist white men would rather govt jobs go to privileged white women than to disadvantaged black men. When Feminists demand more firefighters should be women, I say again, they are performing the base role of scab for the most nauseating element imaginable. (Keep calm uncle! It's Christmas!)
A black man with a wife and kids to support has to be able to bump a single white girl out of a govt job. That's self-evident. Carry on from there.
The solution has something to do with the ideal of completion: people realised to the fullest possible extent: individually and collectively. Equally fully-realised, racial groups would have similar occupational/wealth structures. Fully-realised, men and women would have different structures: Most women would be homemakers with part-time jobs, and most men would be breadwinners with full-time jobs. That is the main sense in which women are the equals of men. It just needs a little fine-tuning.
Female labour is still as generally socially-undesirable as child labour. Because a child or a woman can do a job is no reason for them to do it. They may be hurt by it. Let's focus on getting ourselves out of the hole, instead of digging ourselves deeper into it. We want a homemaker allowance. To be continued.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
The Pickton Trial
In the case of Willie Pickton, accused of killing 6 of the 50 women who have disappeared from Vancouver's east side, the remains of 30 turning up on his farm, the trial having concluded, while the jury is retired, let me state for the record. My verdict:
4 acquittals
2 manslaughter
I do not believe the Ellingsen witness who said she saw Pickton butchering a girl whose remains have not been found. There's no proof she's dead even. That's an acquittal.
The DNA of other men was found in the teeth of two of the victims. They are more likely to be the killers than Pickton. Two more acquittals.
Two girls' blood DNA was found in Willie Pickton's trailer. Likely manslaughter given the circumstantial evidence.
With the remaining girl, the circumstantial evidence against Pickton is too weak to support a conviction. As with the first three above, it's the same circumstantial evidence! Without any hard evidence, that's another acquittal.
Killers and very nasty people are still out there! Police and crown counsel want to slam the door on Pickton and forget all about them. They mustn't be allowed to get away with it, any more than Willie Pickton. He was certainly a knowledgable bit player on the sidelines of some disgusting business.
Anyway, that's my prognosis.
The important issue as far as this blog is concerned is the female lawyers in the crown counsels' office. They are disposed to believe any accusation against a man: the wilder the better. Ellingsen had them eating out of her hand: She saw through them a mile off. Any girlie put through law school at daddy's expense, unemployable in the private sector, can get a job in the crown counsels' office. They are a stock joke; like the female eunuchs in the Castrating Broad Corporation. They have just wasted $100m of public money, and ruined any chance of catching the culprits.
The sooner we get the workforce back on a regular footing the better.
4 acquittals
2 manslaughter
I do not believe the Ellingsen witness who said she saw Pickton butchering a girl whose remains have not been found. There's no proof she's dead even. That's an acquittal.
The DNA of other men was found in the teeth of two of the victims. They are more likely to be the killers than Pickton. Two more acquittals.
Two girls' blood DNA was found in Willie Pickton's trailer. Likely manslaughter given the circumstantial evidence.
With the remaining girl, the circumstantial evidence against Pickton is too weak to support a conviction. As with the first three above, it's the same circumstantial evidence! Without any hard evidence, that's another acquittal.
Killers and very nasty people are still out there! Police and crown counsel want to slam the door on Pickton and forget all about them. They mustn't be allowed to get away with it, any more than Willie Pickton. He was certainly a knowledgable bit player on the sidelines of some disgusting business.
Anyway, that's my prognosis.
The important issue as far as this blog is concerned is the female lawyers in the crown counsels' office. They are disposed to believe any accusation against a man: the wilder the better. Ellingsen had them eating out of her hand: She saw through them a mile off. Any girlie put through law school at daddy's expense, unemployable in the private sector, can get a job in the crown counsels' office. They are a stock joke; like the female eunuchs in the Castrating Broad Corporation. They have just wasted $100m of public money, and ruined any chance of catching the culprits.
The sooner we get the workforce back on a regular footing the better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)