My friend Elsa was told by some New Agers:

New Age Truth #1: You are where you are meant to be.
New Age Truth #2: Everything happens for a reason.
New Age Truth #3: You have chosen everything that happens to you.

These things were told her as ‘truths’ and, as an intelligent, thinking person, she found them, well, for lack of a softer yet sufficient term, idiotic.  They inspired this installment of “The This Is Not Reality’ show (remember the ‘Nicies’?), the ‘High Priestess’:

 

 

Adam Kokesh: “Social conservatism is theocracy!”

Courts: The Obviousness of Anarchy

While I am not an anarchist, I do find that listening to their points of view is, at times, thought-provoking.

Enjoy!

 

John Baglow vs Connie Fournier, Mark Fournier and Roger Smith: the ‘FULL TRIAL’, day 2

EDIT:  Dr. Baglow has been kind enough to inform me that I made a mistake in my reporting of when he joined the NDP.  Indeed, he was inspired by Bob Rae’s victory in Ontario and joined then – but later, he was so disgusted by the political policies that he tore his membership card up.  That is an important distinction, as it completely negates any accusation that Bob Rae’s wife’s religion/nationality had been any kind of a factor in his decision to leave the NDP under Bob Rae’s leadership.

First and foremost, please, see the write up of ‘John Baglow vs Connie Fournier, Mark Fournier and Roger Smith: the ‘FULL TRIAL’, day 1, part 1′ for the details and the warnings.  Short form:  using a borrowed tablet to blog till my laptop is fixed, can’t even highlight, so cant’ put in links and such, but, will come back and do so once I’m ‘back in business’.  So, this will be brief and, temporarily, not linked to supporting materials.  My apologies.  Also, these are my observations and opinions and as I am not legally trained and not a human behaviour professional, all of this content ought to be treated as very highly imperfect opinions and nothing more.

Also, if anyone can add to this account and/or correct any of the many errors I am bound to make, please do so!

Day two of this ‘FULL TRIAL’ was held at the Elgin St. Court House in Ottawa on Tuesday, 25th of March.

It started punctually, but, going on the experience from Monday, I thought I had a bit of leeway and did not enter the courtroom until a few minutes past.  By this point, Dr. Baglow was testifying about having received his doctorate, chuckling about how he spent more years in school than he expected – but I did not catch what that doctorate was about.

He went on about his CV, his jobs, his political affiliations over the years, and so and so.  It was very interesting – and quite a lot of content, as he was asked to quote something from page 6 of it.

For example, Dr. Baglow testified that he considered himself ‘more or less’ a ‘man of the left’ and was a member of the New Democratic Party (NDP) while a student at McGill. Then, he was fascinated by the Communist party (though he never actually joined), but the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia cooled him somewhat (my words, not his) and he returned to the NDP.  He had stayed with the NDP for much of the time since:  except, of course, for when Bob Rae had run it:  he had torn up his membership card then), but returned thereafter.

Aside:  this is very, very interesting….one of the things Connie Fournier said in her opening statement was that a B’nai B’rith member had (rightly or wrongly) accused Dr. Baglow of anti-Semitism…and Bob Rae has, throughout his career, claimed that he had been persecuted by ‘some segments of the population’ because he is married to a Jew.  I’m sure it is a coincidence, as Dr. Baglow asserts contempt for anti-Semites – and Bob Rae’s politics are enough to turn anyone off, regardless of whom he may or may not be married to.  And while I can see how this co-incidence could, potentially, be abused, as my son is fond of saying, co-incidence is not evidence of causality.  And, in all my (admittedly limited) interactions with Dr. Baglow, I have never detected any anti-Semitism (as almost all Europeans, I am part Jewish myself, so I’m touchy on this).

Another, completely irrelevant, aside:  seeing the tanks roll down our street in ’68 when, as a toddler, I climbed up a sofa and a dresser to look out the window, is one of my earliest childhood memories…

Dr. Baglow was as well groomed as ever, wearing a dark suit/shirt, testified he became a civil servant and then joined PSAC (a public service union) and, eventually, became an executive VP thereof.  In this capacity, he had lobbied for all them policies that I consider to be evil – like, for example, the universal child care thingy.

Indulgently personal aside: I grew up in the Socialist Worker’s Paradise and, as such, was institutionalized (during the daytime) from toddlerhood till gradeschool, in a ‘universal daycare/kindergarten’ system.  I am a survivor of this evil and I fully understand its workings and impact, from the inside.   As such, I swore that I’d rather sell myself on the streets than permit such an evil to ever touch MY children!!!

So, when Dr. Baglow willingly testified that  he had fought FOR such evil institutionalization of innocent children (and seemed proud of promoting what, in my never-humble-opinion, is ‘government enforced child abuse’), I kind of lost my composure for a bit and had a hard time hearing the next bit of testimony.  My apologies.

This is about where the ‘interesting’ bits ended – at least, in my never-humble-opinion.  All the next whole bunch of testimony was about what is the ‘blogosphere’, how to spell the word (neither the judge, nor the person transcribing the trial seemed to know the spelling), and so on and so on and so on.  The only ‘colourful’ bits I gleaned fro this are that Dr. Baglow’s lawyer is a frequent commenter on ‘Dawg’s Blag’, even though he and Dr. Baglow have wildly (and chucklingly so) divergent political opinions.

Perhaos one thing I ought to note is that after Dr. Dawg’s lawyer explained one of the finer points of the blogosphere culture,  he mentioned Omar Khadr.  And, since he ‘got into the mode’ of explaining ‘everything’ to the judge, he tried to explain to her who Omar  Khadr was….Amused, the judge replied that though she might not be up on the latest internet jargon, she’s not an idiot….my wording, not hers, intended to capture her body language, not words.  (Note:  later, the judge demonstrated she knew exactly what a ‘hyperlink’ is, and thus may be tiny bit less of a luddite than she postures as….  To me, this is a very positive thing, indicating she ‘gets’ what she knows and does not know, both, and is not afraid to ask questions!

Actually, I had been quite impressed by Madam Justice Polowin, J.:  she takes copious notes (Dr. Baglow even slowed his lawyer down a bit by gestures to ensure she gets all the note-taking in).  My own experience is that if I hear something, I may forget it on perhaps even not ‘process’ it correctly…but if I write it down as part of ‘taking notes’ – I can usually recall it very accurately, without needing to refer to the notes themselves.  Having observed Madam Justice Polowin, J., I am wondering if her note-taking serves a similar function because if she writes it down, she seems able to quote it without difficulty…

As best as I can determine, the rest of the morning’s testimony had been taken up by defining terms like ‘thread’ and technical details about who has editorial control over posts and comments and site meters and such…

Of interest to other bloggers may be some little tidbits, otherwise unimportant….

  • Dr. Baglow testified that though his readership fluctuates, it averages about a thousand unique readers per day
  • he currently has 3 co-bloggers who can post, but not have moderating control
  • he described a very different ‘startup’ and ‘functions’ experience from mine – but that is to be expected as I have used different platforms than he has
  • he deferred to his tech guy, Mr Bows (sp?) for all tech details, said not knowledgable himself
  • he uses SiteMeter
  • he does not permit racist, anti-Semitic or any kind of hate speech comments on his blog
  • he did 2 takedowns/apologies (with qualifications, making it seem like Ezra Levant’s claim against him was both a persecution for an innocent and understandable misunderstanding of legalese as well as an ‘over-reach’…and the other was a simple misunderstanding of the facts, rather than a misstatement)

‘The term ‘trolling’ got discussed a lot and had been, in my never-humble-opinion, woefully poorly defined and misrepresented to the court – though, it seemed to me, this was not done as a deception but as a deep and true misunderstanding of the very philosophical basis of the concept of ‘trolling’ and the positive, beneficial and, frankly, necessary (for freedom of thought), function of an ‘internet troll’.

At a point just shy of 11:25 am, Madam Justice said she had received a request from her court staff that they would like a little recess -  and we were adjourned for 15 mniutes.

Oh, how things can change!!!

As we all filed back into courtroom 21, Dr. Baglow’s lawyer became concerned over the redness in the face of Dr. Baglow, who suffers from high blood pressure.  While Dr. Baglow protested and insisted some of this redness was due to a sunburn he had just suffered on his holidays to Cuba*, his lawyer was not taking any chances.  All the lawyers and self-reps met in the judges’ chambers while the court clerk took Dr. Baglow’s pulse, declared it way too high, and called the judge with her finding.

On this note, the hearing was adjourned on medical grounds for a bunch of hours….and, no knowing for how long it would go on for following such  a long break, and considering the start of a migraine in me…well, to make a short story even shorter, I went home to try to recover.  My understanding is that tomorrow morning will be taken up with more background testimony and we’ll not get to any of the juicy/substantial stuff until tomorrow pm…

 

 

 

 

Proper role of Government

 

Equality and Inequality under Law

 

CodeSlinger: School ditches rules and loses bullies

As I have been busy for the last few days attending Essentials of Freedomconference in Edmonton, Alberta, (they have been kind enough to ask me to say a few words on the topic of Cultural Marxism and Political Correctness), I have been a little busier than usual.  (More on this later!)

CodeSlinger has been very gracious and has stepped in with a most excellent guest post (note – edited to insert source links):

The title refers to an article on stuff.co.nz and another article on TVNZ.

In a two-year-long experiment, four elementary schools in New Zealand got rid of all safety rules governing playtime at recess and lunch break.  Kids could go back to climbing trees, skateboarding, bike-riding, or playing such barbaric games as dodge ball, bull rush, or tag.  Just like they used to, before the nanny state ruined everything.

Of course, the playground immediately descended into mayhem, the infirmary was flooded with injured children, and the learning environment was hopelessly disrupted…

NOT!

Actually, when you let children play vigorously, and you give them freedom, the children are better behaved overall, more able to concentrate in class, and less likely to get hurt at play.

Oh, the horror!

The progressive matriarchs and their metrosexual disciples, who hold the school system in their politically correct clutches, were left palpitating in scandalized disbelief.  To them, vigorous play is violent and dangerous, and freedom is the deplorable result of inadequate supervision.  And evidence to the contrary is simply not acceptable!

These same progressive matriarchs and metrosexuals, who manufacture clueless, helpless, fearful people by never letting kids take a risk, were shocked and outraged to find that kids are actually pretty good at not hurting themselves or each other when you let them do what they want.

“The great paradox of cotton-woolling children is it’s more dangerous in the long-run,” says Grant Schofield, a professor of public health at Auckland University of Technology.  We need a university professor to tell us this? Well, apparently, progressives do.  You can tell he’s talking to progressives, because he calls this a great paradox.  Normal people just
call it obvious.

These same progressive matriarchs and metrosexuals, who think that social order can only by maintained by breaking young spirits to the yoke of collectivism, were confused and distressed to discover that kids have neither the time nor the inclination to get into trouble when they’re busy playing interesting and energetic games.

“The time children get into trouble is when they are not busy, motivated and engaged.  It’s during that time they bully other kids, graffiti or wreck things around the school,” says Bruce McLachlan, Principal of  Swanson Primary School in Auckland.  But his words are lost on progressives, who are too intent on undermining religion and tradition to admit the truth of
age-old proverbs like, “idle hands are the Devil’s playthings.”

These same progressive matriarchs and metrosexuals, who think the purpose of a primary education is to turn boys into little girls, were perplexed and disturbed to observe that kids have a much easier time sitting still and concentrating in class when you let them burn off enough energy during recess.

This is especially true of boys.  Girls don’t find it that hard to conform to the sedentary, structured classroom setting.  But healthy young boys have enormous amounts of energy, which they simply cannot keep bottled up. Therefore, progressives forbid them from burning it off, and then punish them when they can’t sit still.  And when that doesn’t work, reach for the
drugs.  Progressives call this “positive socialization,” but normal people call it punishing boys for being boys.

Four schools in Auckland were involved in the experiment and all reported similar findings: bullying and vandalism dropped sharply, the time-out area was completely emptied out, playground accidents were reduced, and classroom performance was improved.

In spite of these dramatic successes, only one of these four schools cared enough to make this way of doing things permanent.  (Note: the principal of that school was a man.)

Still, one is better than none, and we can hope that this is the first hint of the beginning of the end of the politically correct progressive stranglehold on our public schools.

But as of right now, it’s obvious that the vast majority of school principals care much more about the politically correct progressive agenda than they do about the well-being of your kids.

Remember that, next time progressives exhort you to think of the children!

Coercion vs Freedom

The Nature and Origin of Human Rights

 

INTRO – Individualism vs Collectivism

Since we cannot be reminded of the origin of human rights:

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 125 other followers