‘Tax cut’ vs. ‘tax rebate’

What exactly is the difference between a ‘tax cut’ and a ‘tax rebate’?  There are several very fundamental differences.

First, let us look at ‘taxes’

Taxes are the money we pay to our government.  This money is supposed to be used for something people need to get together for in order to achieve, such as ‘policing’ and ‘national defence’.  Other ‘common goods’, such as education, road construction, and so on,  are among the things we contract our governments to do.  Paying taxes is the way we ‘pool our pennies’ to do this. 

We pay taxes in many ways.  It can be through income taxes, where an employer has to take a part of a worker’s earnings and send it to the government – only the remnant goes to the worker.  Or, it can be through consumption taxes, where part of the price of each product or service is raised by some amount which is then paid (remitted) by the merchant or service provider to the government.  There is more, but – you get the picture.

The government has lots of wonderful, highly trained (and higly paid) civil servants who keep meticulous records of every penny that comes in:  whom it comes from and where it is going.  They also keep meticulous records making sure everybody has paid what they are supposed to.

Tax Cut

In a tax cut, the amount of money the government asks for is reduced.  Fewer pennies are coming into the government coffers, so more of them stay in your pocket – either because less of your wages gets sent to the government so that more can go to you, or because the price you pay for something is closer to its cost, since the price is less artificially raised by taxes. 

It also means that fewer pennies are entering the government coffers.  And (in an ideal world) fewer pennies coming in means fewer people who need to keep meticulous records of the pennies.  As in, fewer highly skilled, well paid professionals whose salaries are paid from all these pennies coming in.

Tax Rebate

A tax rebate works very differently.  The government is asking for the same amount of money to be sent into the government coffers, so the same amount of money is taken from a worker’s paycheque as before and sent to the government.  Buying ‘stuff’ is still expensive, because the price of everything still includes the same amount of of taxes – which are sent to the government coffers. 

The legions of highly trained (and highly paid) civil servants still keep meticulous track of all of this.  Then, at the end of the year, after the civil servants have done all the figuring out and balancing of things, they decide how much more you have paid than you should have.  So, they issue a cheque for this amount and send it to you. 

All this time, these pennies were in the government coffers, not in your pockets – so it was much harder to make the ends meet during the whole year….but now, you get a little bit back.

These are the ‘mechanics’, if you will, of the difference between a ‘tax cut’ and a ‘tax rebate’.  But there is another very important difference between these two – a difference I have not really heard people discussing. 

It is the difference in who is dominant in the government-taxpayer relationship.

When we pay taxes to our government, we are, in effect, contracting the government to act on our behalf in certain areas.  We, the taxpayers, are the boss.  Yes, the government has means to coerce us to pay, but the psychological and philosophical principle holds for how the relationship is set up.  The individual is the one who is employing the government, the individual is the empowering partner in the relationship.

When the government sends us rebates, it is the government who is the decisionmaker and the dominant partner in the relationship.  The taxpayer is reduced to the grateful recipient while the government is the power which decides who deserves to get money, and how much.

To make it easier to understand the relationship, let’s reduce the scale to the level of a family.  One partner works and earns a paycheque, the other looks after the household. 

If the earner controls the money, then the earner decides how much to hand over to the one who looks after the household and how much to keep.  The house-keeper may ask for extra when needed, but it is the earner who is in control.  If, on the other hand, the earner hands over the full paycheque to the house-keeper, and perhaps gets a little allowance for personal expenses, it is the house-keeper who is in control…  as in the first minute or so of the clip below:

To sum up, the idea behind a tax rebate in Oscar’s words:   ‘Holy hell!  The government has us on an allowance!’

Another person could be jailed for telling jokes!

This time, in Italy:

The Christian world may have been dismayed, even outraged, at the Muslim reaction in 2005 to Danish cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammed, but Italian law enforcement appears to have had its own sense of humour failure. Giovanni Ferrara, the Rome prosecutor, is invoking the 1929 Lateran Treaty between Italy and the Vatican, which stipulates that an insult to the Pope carries the same penalty as an insult to the Italian President.

Even certain sections of the Church are unimpressed. Father Bartolomeo Sorge, a Jesuit scholar, told La Repubblica the move to prosecute Ms Guzzanzi was incomprehensible. “We Christians put up with many insults, it is part of being a Christian, as is forgiveness. I feel sure the Pope has already forgiven those who insulted him on Piazza Navona.”

So, let’s recap this:

  1. Ms. Guzzani told rude jokes about the Pope
  2. She is charged under a law that limits free speech and dates back to fascist times and could face 5 years in jail
  3. the Church does not think she did anything for which she ought to be charged (as in, no victim)
  4. Secular laws are used to persecute her ANYWAY

Does this sound familiar?

Why are there segments of our society which think that people who are not hurt, are not offended, still need legislation to protect their feelings?  Do they REALLY care about the ‘victim’ who claims NOT to be a victim?

Or is this a pretext to manipulate the populace, to exercise power over us and censor any opinions that do not advance the censor’s power?

How much clearer could this be?

(Thanks to FiveFeetOfFury for the tip)

Let’s Roll

Journalists and elites

Societies change.  That is natural and to be expected.  And as they do, who makes up the ‘elites’ also changes.  While I think that observing the patterns in societal changes may be interesting all on its own, it may also help us predict the future patterns of change.

A while ago, the ruling class was determined by family affiliation:  in order to raise an army to conquer a country with, a person had to belong to a royal or, at least, an aristocratic family.  Same for succession.  Well, usually! 

This has changed.  The patterns of how and why are complex and more suited to a book than a simple blog post.  Let it suffice to say that looking at today’s elites, it appears that most of their members do not have pretentions to royal bloodlines.

So, whom are todays elites made up from?

Aside from the celbrities (why they are ‘famous elite’ is a whole different post), today’s elites can be (very roughly) divided into two general groups:  ‘rich elites’ and ‘intellectual elites’.  (Looking at the infinite nuances of their sub-casts would take another book…so let’s stick with the ‘big’ differentiation.)

The rich elites are often marked by the pretentions of past nobility:  ‘familly money’ individuals often look down on the ‘nuveau-riche’ as ‘upstarts’.  But, especially in the US, where personal achievement is not yet regarded as a bad thing, the rich can all be lumped together under the general label of ‘rich elites’.  Especially by the second generation…

The intellectual elites are a lot more interesting:  these people have no pretentions to being able to actually do something.  Instead, they see themselves as the ‘thinkers’ of society.  It is not sufficient to be highly educated and very intelligent in order to be part of the ‘intellectual elite’ – scientists, for example, would satisfy these criteria, yet they are most certainly not politically influential.  They get patted on their heads, warmly welcome (for a little while) if they can be temporarily useful, but then they get locked back in their labs.  So, what is that quality?

Unsurprisingly enough, to be a member of the ‘intellectual elite’, one has to appear to fit in comfortably with the ‘rich elite’.  This ‘fitting in’ could be an ostentatiously overdone ‘poor look’ (like the ‘bohemians’ that many University Professors used to affect while it was fashionable), but underneath, one must be able to act rich, rich, rich!  

This immediatelly rules out those who are unpretentious – keeping up fake appearances is simply not attractive to unpretentious people.  Now, since our Universities and Colleges have, to a great degree, been staffed by professors who typically hold radically socialist views, it is not surprising that those who wished to be admitted to these ‘intellectual elites’ had to affect similar manners and assimilate these very political views.

So, the group which emerges as being most politically influential (other than the ‘old rich elites’ – as in, old-money  families) is made up of pretentious, radical socialists!  In Canada and the US, we easily recognize them as our ‘Liberals’ and ‘Democrats’…

But, where do the journalists fit in?  They, most certainly, are not even now rich enough to be admitted to either of the ‘elites’ of today!  Yet, in Journalism schools, they were subjected to radical socialist teachings.  And, now, they are sent to cover the lives and actions of the two elites.  Is is surprising, then, that getting to know these people as individuals during the course of their work, the journalists (who, like all of us, wish to be ‘special’ and ‘extraordinary’) have come to identify themselves with one of these two elites?

Unless born or married into a rich family, a journalist cannot hope to fit in with the ‘rich elite’.  That is just a simple economic fact – even the best newspapers do not pay that well.  However, many of them can and do fit in comfortably with the ‘intellectual elites’.  Well, sort of.  At least, they are much closer – close enough that from the point of view of the journalists, they feel like they fit in.

And while there may be some crossover, at least in the USA, the ‘rich elite’ is traditionally associated with the pro-business Republicans while the ‘intellectual elite’ tends to be associated with the socialist Democrats.  The rest of us mortals fall into one or the other camp, based on what we think is a better way to organize a society:  based on individual achievement or on group-rule.  (In Canada, the ‘rich elite’ is almost non-existant, so the ‘Conservative’ party only retains the image of ‘old money’, rather than embodies it – but despite the facts, the image remains.  The ‘intellectual elite’ in Canada is split between the ‘Liberal’ and ‘New Democratic’ parties).

Is it surprising, then, that when covering ‘their own’ elite, the journalists of the MainStream Media find themselves ‘cheering’, and while when covering ‘the other elite’, they are incessantlly booing?

All right, so I don’t have a revelation here, or much of a real point of any kind.  But, watching this particular pattern is interesting, is it not?

MSMs approval ratings sink lower that Bush’s

We have all heard the cries that the Main-Stream Media (MSM) has a pro-liberal, anti-conservative bias.  Members of the MSM dispute this, righteous indignation inflaming their passions.  I am convinced that they truly are unable to see any bias in their coverage – from daily events to political commentary.  Yet, I am equally convince that the bias exists – and that it is very, very pronounced. 

‘Bias’ is such a difficult thing to prove – yet it is easy to spot.  It might not be ‘what’ is written, but ‘how’.  It may not be the words a newsanchor speaks, but how they tilt their head, square or slump their shoulders, how steadily they hold their gaze. 

I notice these things quite a bit – being an Aspie, I do not understand body-language and facial expressions naturally.  Therefore, I have had to learn the nuances of their meanings – and am accustomed to ‘search and interpret’ them.  Where others might get a ‘feeling’ or simply be swayed, I have to actually go through the conscious process of interpreting the manner, affect and body language.  So, yes, I do see it – and it drives me crazy when people deny it is there! 

NewsBusters had an article recently, which confirmed what I have been thinking:  it is not a ‘conspiracy’ among media members, nor are they bribed, or anything ‘fun’ like that.  The righteous indignation most members of the MSM feel does not ring false.  Something else is going on.  Here is a part of the conversation between two journalists, quoted in that article:

HARWOOD: Well, some of – I get what you’re saying, and look, I think that people who talk about bias in the mainstream press, left of center bias, are not imagining things. 

KERNAN: No. 

HARWOOD: It has to do with the kind of people who go into journalism, okay? So I’m not arguing with that general notion.  I think those of us in journalism have to do our best to try to present the most objective view we can of what we have –

KERNAN: I agree.

HARWOOD: But everybody brings their own filter into it.

This is an honest admission that most of the people who wish to enter the profession of journalism are, for reasons unknown, more likely to hold left-of-centre views than otherwise.  But, surely, once in journalism school, the professors will have taught their young recruits how to recognize their own bias, and how to overcome it?

Well, not in my experience….  I went to a University which was known for excellence in two disciplines:  journalism and physics.  I studied the latter.  Yet, I did have some interactions with the school of journalism…

When one of my Math exams was located in the Journalism buildings, some friends joked I did not have to study for it- it was ‘bound to be cancelled’.  Regardless, I went to the exam – only to find the whole building locked up, metal grills blocking all entrances:  someone had phoned in a bomb threat.  I got upset – a bomb threat?!?  That was not a laughing matter!  Yet, other students tried to comfort me:  “This is the Journalism building – the profs would fail them if they did not phone in one or two bomb threats!”

So, who exactly are these professors of journalism? 

Here, demographics play a very important role…  The journalism departments are (or, at least, while I was in University, they were) run by baby-boomers and ex-hippies:  the same people who fought against the Vietnam war by staging student protests and who learned the wrong lesson about ‘class struggle’:  instead of learning (and teaching) to oppose ‘the establishent’, they learned to fight the political views which defined ‘the establishment’ of their youth.

These people are still trying to fight McCathy!

These professors even go so far as to teach that ‘responsible journalism’ is one which provides the information in such a way as to lead their audience to the ‘correct’ opinion!  In other words, instead of teaching ‘impartial journalism’ which reports the facts and allows the audience to form its own conclusions, they are teaching young journalists that producing propaganda is ‘responsible journalism’!  No wonder most of today’s journalists are unable to discern their own bias, or see manipulative reporting as inappropriate!

This is, by no means, an American phenomenon:  it is worldwide… with the added dimension that people outside of the US add a very unmistakable ‘anti-American’ twist.  Please, indulge me here for just a little bit:  American or not, we are all bombarded by the coverage of the US elections.  So, I could not help but notice…. 

Both Barack Obama’s father, and step-father (who influenced him as he grew up) were employed by oil companies.  I do not think there is anything wrong with the fact itself – I am only asking if you think that most people would be left unaware of this fact had this candidate been a Republican?

Which brings me to Mr. Bush – perhaps one of the least liked politicians today.  His popularity ratings today are – according to the most recent polls – somewhere between 35% and 30%.  So, how do the American people see their media?

Among unaffiliated voters, 49% say reporters are trying to hurt Palin, while 32% say their coverage is unbiased. Only five percent (5%) say reporters are trying to help her.

Only 32% of ‘unaffiliated’ Americans think the media does not have left-wing bias!  This, by coincidence, is about the same percentage as approves of Bush as President.

This ought to make them think…

Comment to B’nai Brith Canada

B’nai Brith Canada is one of the oldest human rights organizations in Canada.  Several days ago, they released a very interesting document titled:

Hate Jurisdictions of Human Rights Commissions: A System in Need of Reform

Submission by the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada to the Canadian Human Rights Commission

 It is an interesting document, both in what it says and in what its publication implies:  even the most ‘politically correct’ human rights organizations are considering the current happenings at the Canadian HRCs to be, in the least, worriesome.  That should give us all a moment to pause and think!

Dr. Frank Dimant is Executive Vice President of B’nai Brith Canada and CEO of the organization’s Institute for International Affairs and the League for Human Rights.  Yestreday, on his blog ‘Frankly Speaking’, he asked for feedback on what people thought of the abovemantioned document. 

Following is the comment I submitted: 

Having read this submission several days ago, I found much in it which was very true and in need of saying.  Thank you for that.

However, there were some parts which I very strongly disagreed with and which – in my opinion – are illustrations of fundamental misunderstandings of the nature of human rights.  Please, allow me to explain using just one example.

In section iii – ‘Hate jurisdictions and their essential role’, there is a statement:  “The Holocaust did not begin with censorship.  It began with hate speech.  Auschwitz was built with words.”

This statement is demonstrably untrue.  The Holocaust DID INDEED begin with censorship:  the censorship OF hate speech! 

Prior to Hitler’s rise to power, Germany did indeed have hate speech laws, very similar to those we have here in Canada today.  These laws were indeed used to prosecute those who ‘spread hate against Jews’ – and Jewish leaders of that era were very satisfied with the application and efficacy of these laws!

It was precisely these hate speech laws which Hitler, once in power, used in order to silence dissenters – the very people who could have prevented atrocities like Auschwitz…..had they not been stripped of their freedom of speech. 

Auschwitz could never have been built had the fear of prosecution under hate speech laws not silenced those who would have spoken up against it!

It is precisely because hate speech laws can be, were and are used to silence those who would protest ‘incitement to hate’ which makes atrocities a possibility.  True, the ‘incintement to hate’ must (at least at first) be veiled or disguised in order to become entrenched as ‘acceptable’, but the veil can be very thin indeed.  We have seen it in history (the Nazi regime) and we are seeing it again from militant Islamists.

It is not by coincidence that many leaders of militant and politicized Islamism idolize Hitler.  But these Islamists are doing more than just idolizing Hitler- they are quite intentionally emulating him by using hate speech laws as a weapon, not a shield.  Failing to recognize this could be very bad for our society.

There is no place for hate speech laws in a society which wishes to remain free and whose citizens respect each other’s rights.  It was these hate speech laws themselves which facilitated  opression, torture and murder under the Nazi regime and which can (and, I fear, will) be used in this way again!  That is something we must never again allow to happen!

If you would be interested in more of my observartions, please, contact me.

Thank you,

Xanthippa

‘You’re pretty fat!’

Out of the mouths of babes!

Recently, I spent some time with my ‘old friend’ and her delightfully honest daughter.  She (the young daughter) informed me that my hair was shiny and looked pretty, that she liked my dress, and that I was ‘pretty fat’. 

I thanked her for her compliments.

It seems strange to me how many people negate young children’s honest observations, and attempt to devalue them! 

OK, ‘years ago’, my friend and I were both quite pretty.  Yet, as we had kids, I had turned into a ‘mama bear’ while my friend had grown into a ‘foxy mama’!  Yes, we have words for women like that! 

Yet, that is not my point.

My point is how we treat ‘honesty’ – especially the type of honesty which comes from the mouths of babes.  My friend’s daughter is pre-school aged, yet her mom looked uncomfortable when her daughter had made a true – even if ‘touchy’ – observation!  Yes, she was relieved I was not hurt or offended – but how could I possibly be hurt or offended by the honesty of a child?

To my friend’s credit – she may have looked ‘uncomfortable’, yet she did not try to stop her daughter from speakng her mind.  I applaud all parents who let their kids speak the truth – even if it is ‘socially uncomfortable’!  Yet, among parents, she in the minority…

Has our society fallen so much that a child saying ‘The Emperor has no clothes’ would be shushed and shut up by it’s ‘politically correct’ parents?

If so, that is a truly sad state of things…for if a child dare not speak the truth, who will?

Can ‘good’ athletes compete in ‘bad’ Olympics?

The Beijing Olympics is about as much about sports as Sexapalooza is about human rights.

No, this is not at all being facetious – it is a very valid comparison.  Without ‘human rights’ (specifically, the freedom to exercise them), Sexapalooza would not be able to educate its consumer base on ‘all aspects of sexuality’, its primary goal.  Similarly, without ‘sports’, the Beijing Olympics organizers (i.e. Chinese Government) could not educate its consumer base on ‘all aspects of how wonderful their regime is’, their primary goal.

(Why the comparison to sexuality?  Because typically, repressing sexuality is among the first goals of an opressive regime.  And, you can bet your bippies, there will be no Sexapalooza (or anything even remotely similar) anywhere within smiting distance of the Beijing Olympics.)

When, eariler, there were calls for boycott of the games, ‘people’ said:  “But what about the athletes?  It is not fair to them!”  It seemed that, in many people’s eyes, the ‘right’ of the athletes to compete in the Olympics somehow invalidated any concerns about the message the world is sending by allowing this farce to go on! 

By participating, the world is very much condoning the harvesting (yes, HARVESTING – like, as in, ‘reaping’ – by definition) of human organs from political prisoners/innocent citizens – and that is just a tip of the iceberg of opression in China! 

But, sending a message that this behaviour is not acceptable and NOT participating in this sham of an Olympics would, somehow, be ‘unfair’ to the athletes…  We just don’t understand – they TRAINED for this!  It’s their DREAM!  And everyone knows that an athlete’s dream is so much more important thant a ‘regular’ Chinese person’s nightmare!

Their ‘right’ to compete is SOOOO much more important than a ‘regular’ Chinese person’s right to keep her liver!  (I wonder if Monty Python, in their worst nightmare, ever thought that their ‘can we have your liver’ sketch would come true….ecxept without the ‘asking’ bit!)

So, as we are about to be force-fed a set of Olympic games in a regime so controlling of its people, it dictates how cheering may or may not be done, why is nobody asking: 

‘What ABOUT the athletes?’ 

Who are these people for whose ‘right’ to ‘get a podium’ so many others have to pay for in blood? (And, make no mistake about it – much of the Olympic fanfare HAS been paid by the proceeds from ‘organ harvesting’.  Instead of ‘blood diamonds’, these are ‘blood medals’!) 

Who are these priveleged few, whose desire for fame is so great, they will – literally – look the other way, amile and say nothing, accept the medals as their dues… while their hosts murder and torture to get them these medals?

I, for one, do not think that any being worthy of being called ‘human’ could possibly choose to elevate themselves this high above others.  It is arrogant elitism at its worst.  And it is allowing their bodies to be used to promote this corrupt and opressive regime – for a fitting reward, of course!

So, would ‘good athletes’ prostitute themselves to the ‘grim reapers’?

‘Cooperation’ is to ‘Collaboration’ like ‘Hippies’ are to ‘Yuppies’

Sometimes, things nag at me.

‘Buzzwords’ ‘bug’ me in general, the buzzword ‘collaboration’ bugs me in particular.

Being a slow thinker, I have wondered for years now why I even care.  And, yes, I do flinch every time I hear it used….’collaborative efforts’ sets up a whole tick of flinches!

But, why?

The obvious reason is the pejorative connotation ‘collaboration’ has in all the European countries once occupied by Nazi Germany.  Collaborators were those who sought to improve their individual circumstances by working alongside (co-labour-ating) the oppressive occupational forces through (and this is key in my mind) harming others.  Growing up, there was no ambiguity in morality:  ‘collaborators ought to be lined up along a wall and shot’. 

Of course, that is not the only meaning in which the term is used.  Is there something else about ‘collaboration’ that I am almost – but not quite – picking up on here? 

Perhaps a good starting place is to contrast ‘collaboration’ to its ‘predecessor buzzword’, ‘cooperation’.  The dictionary definition is – excepting the whole ‘lining collaborators up against the wall’ thingy – somewhat similar…yet slightly different.  Some dictionaries list them as synonyms, others define ‘collaboration’ as ‘directed cooperation’…  Many people more qualified in this than I have done excellent analysis of the difference in meaning from one discipline to another (some are mutually quite exclusive)…

What about cultural connotations, who uses the words, and to what end.  Could I find a clue there?  Perhaps…

The ‘old’ buzzword, ‘cooperation’, has a decidedly ‘Kumbaya’ feel about it…  It is all about caring and sharing and stoning anyone who isn’t already stoned into cooperating with, like, nature, and people, and, like, stuff. 

But it is also evocative of super-exclusivist intellectuals, like those who wear Birkenstock sandals (those non-conformists!) and set up ‘condominium co-operatives’ where they insist on interviewing potential condo buyers to make sure they are ‘suitable’ kinds of people to ‘cooperate with’.  They are open-minded, of course – ‘minority status’ is a bonus, so long as they have the right ideology and score high enough on the ‘pretentiousness scale’.

And it also makes one think of some more ‘proletarian’ forms of ‘cooperation’, usually called ‘co-ops’.  These would be ‘co-operatives’ set up to ‘help’ a specific class of people – say, farmers.  These tend to be incredibly inclusive:  as in (here in Canada), they successfully lobied governments to make it illegal for someone – like, say, a farmer – to farm UNLESS they were a member of the cooperative.  Papa Stalin would have been so proud!

From ‘Milk’ and ‘Egg’ and ‘Wheat’… these took on names like ‘Marketing Board’ and – strictly to protect the farmers and assure a ‘fair’ wage for their work – set out manipulating produce prices by setting quotas to limit production.  ‘Member’ farmers then have to buy a ‘quota’ and are forced to destroy any produce above this – or the ‘inspectors’ will destroy their means of production.  It is so strict that a chicken farmer is not allowed to bring a chicken she grew to her son’s barbecue… for removing the chicken from the premises and allowing ‘others’ to consume it with her, she could be stripped of her production quota. 

Now, THAT is SOME protection ‘cooperation’ can provide!

Marx had seen human cultures as forming a closed circle:  starting with a ‘primal collectivism’ in the earliest dawns of human civilization, through various stages like feudalism, capitalism and socialism, all the way to ‘advanced collectivism’ (I am translating these terms, never read this bit in English – sorry if it is not in ‘usual terms’…it is, however, in accurate terms.)  ‘Advanced collectivism’ is, of course, synonymous with ‘communism’.

So why does the word ‘collaboration’ make me cringe even more?

Perhaps because ‘cooperation’ is to ‘collaberation’ like ‘hippies’ are to ‘yuppies’!

It is ‘self-centred’, ‘task-oriented’, ‘mean, lean and cold’.  Still just as pretentious – especially among the ‘condo people’.  Which is where the whole ‘WWII collaboration’ meaning comes in.  No, don’t invoke the ‘Goodwin law’, not like that…  Just that whatever the evils of ‘coerced cooperation’ may be, there is at least a ‘lip service’ paid to ‘improving’ and ‘community building’.  It still hold the idea – as wrong as this is – that whatever the means, there will be a common good that will come out of this.

‘Collaboration’ shakes these illusions.  Yes, is also is ‘working together’ but not like a team – more like cogs in a machine!

It is strictly business!  No social benefits, no community building, no ‘common goals’.  We have a ‘task’ here, you do your bit, I’ll do mine. Don’t bother trying to build an infrastructure from which other ‘stuff’ could grow – we don’t have funding for that.  Just build your widget – I don’t care how or whom you hurt in the process – and hand it over to the next guy in line!

I suppose it is a sort of a ‘modern day production line’, except without the robots.

Like ‘cooperation’, ‘collaboration’ is less and less a matter of choice and more and more a matter of coersion.  It has all the negative aspects of ‘cooperation’ (except the campfire songs – no time for that), yet more dehumanizing…. 

Oh, yes, we are all pulling ‘together’, but not as a team… it’s each collaborator for him/her self!

Where ‘cooperation’ was (in its infancy) a reaction to a controlling society, an attempt to band together to stand up to ‘big business’, ‘collaboration’ is the ‘next evolutionary step’.  It is – in every sense of the word – ‘bureaucratization’ of ‘cooperation’.  Just think about it for a while – it really is.

Which brings me to the WHO: Who are the people most fond of this buzzword?

Bureaucrats of all stripes! 

Oh, they don’t see themselves as bureaucrats!  They are ‘educators’, ‘intellectuals’ and ‘professionals’!  Except that….they’re not.  They could have been – but instead of ‘teaching’ and ‘discovering’ and ‘achieving’, they are busy ‘defining the process’ and ‘implementing best practices’ (controlling the process) and going to important meetings to tell other important people about their latest ‘best practices’… bureaucratizing!

Collaborators, the whole bunch of them!

‘Ezra’s cartoon fate’

It seems rather ironic…
 
First, I wrote about how Yemen and Iran are subverting their legal systems to impose death penalties on the bloggers whom they dissaprove of. 
 
Then, I explained how others try to stifle free speech…even in the shape of ‘little’ blogs.
 
You could say that protecting free speech in all forms is one of those defining issues for me.  Yes, I have kids – and I teach my kids well!
 
So, even my young son could not remain unaware of the ‘free speech/Human Rignts Commissions’ controversy brewing in our fair homeland of Canada.  Perhaps the most visible (certainly the most colourful) free speech advocate in Canada right now – in my never-humble-opinion, is Mr. Ezra Levant.  I admit, I have become fascinated with the ‘gray dungeon’ Mr. Levant was interrogated in by the Alberta HRC Inquisitoress in, seeing its ‘grayness’ with the painting of the ‘sunny, free outdoors’ as somehow symbolic of the whole proces…  I have gone as far as to paint my ‘impression’ of the dungeon, in hopes of – sometimes soon – donating it to an auction benefiting the ‘free speech’ defense fund. 
 
Please, consider the ‘interrogation chamber’ vs. my very imperfect impression of it:
 
Interrogation Chamber: 

…and my ‘impression’ of it:

'Ezra's dungeon'

'Ezra's dungeon'

Yes, it is not a ‘perfect’ copy, the colours are brighter (on purpose), the shapes are not the same – but this is simply my ‘impression’ of the ‘promise of bright freedom’ – only as an illusion, a projection on the wall of this dank, gray, cave of a dungeon… please put it down to ‘artistic licence’!

Well, the funny thing is…the day before I wrote about the death-threat Mr. Levant had received, and the day of the benefit for a comic who is being dragged in front of the thought police for sayin ‘unfunny jokes’, my young son had drawn a series of cartoons, capturing an innocent 9-year-old’s perceptions of our struggle for the freedom of speech! 

(Yes, the seating positions of Ezra and the Inquisitor (or, is it Inqisitrix?) are mirrored in the comic….please excuse that detail – but note that it has been carried throughout the comic strip.  Also, note the beautifully-rendered, iconographic painting on the wall, which clearly identifies the setting!)

Ezra Levant is being 'told off' by the HRC Inquisitor

Ezra Levant is being 'told off' by the HRC Inquisitor

The hammer comes down!

The hammer (gavel?) comes down! It knocks poor Ezra through the ceiling.

The hammer hits the table so hard, it goes right through!

The hammer hits the table so hard, it goes right through!

 
Ezra frees himself, the hammer crashes through the wall...

As Ezra frees himself, the hammer rebounds, crashes through the wall behind the Inquisitor...

...and the hammer hits the neighbour!

...and the hammer hits the neighbour!

...mid-air collision...

...mid-air collision between Ezra and the Inquisitor...

....the rough landing

....the rough landing, as the neighbour grasps the hammer...

The angry neighbour throwns the hammer back, clever Ezra ducks!

The angry neighbour throwns the hammer back, clever Ezra ducks!

Ezra is fine as the knocked-out Inquisitor passes out

As the KO'd Inquisitor gets stuck in the table, Ezra is free!

And the moral of the story?

If you bring the hammer down on someone who does not deserve it, it might just rebound onto you!