Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Sites | Writers | Advertise | My Orble | Login

Opinionated Ranter - The Adventures of Being Awesome...

 
I am but a man trying to live the dream. This is how I see the world...

Opinionated Ranter - September 2007

MAYBE THERE'S HOPE

I read a rather interesting article today involving the extradition of prisoners between Canada and the USA.

It seems our government has said no to a number of extraditions even after they've been approved by the authorities in the States. The latest, biggest case that comes to mind is that of Conrad Black. Convicted of 4 out of 13 charges levelled against him, and facing serious time in an American prison, it is presumed that Black will apply to serve his sentence in Canada.

This will be hard to do as Black renounced his citizenship in order to gain a seat in the British House of Lords. I won't go into the politics behind this, but suffice it to say that he is no longer a Canadian citizen. Now, suddenly, he wants it back and if sentenced to do time, wants to do it in Canada. Why? Because he knows he'll do about a third of the actual sentence that is handed down in a country club prison.


Our Minister of Public Safety, Stockwell Day, seems to have had about enough of this nonsense. While the number of extraditions has never been what one may consider outrageous, it has been enough for the Tories to sit up and take notice. The Conservative Party ran on a platform of cracking down on crime and they are showing they're serious about it. Under the former Liberal government, there were about 38 prisoner transfers approved per year. This year, as of June, 12 transfers, already approved by the US were turned down while two were approved. Quite a difference.

Day has written of his disgust of transfers involving convicted drug dealers, saying, "BC dope dealers busted in the US are demanding to be transferred back to cosier Canadian jails and reduced prison times. Memo to drug dealer: I'm no dope. Enjoy the US."

Of course, the liberal defence lawyers are all up in arms over this. They cite statistics showing that criminals brought back to Canada are better controlled because they are under surveillence while in prison and can be better gauged as to whether or not they continue to be a potential threat to society. A 2005 internal report on the corrections agency says that "the alternative is that the offender is deported back to Canada at the end of his sentence without correctional supervision/jurisdiction and without the benefit of programming and a gradual structured release into the community." What nonsense.


Currently, prisoners are opting to serve their full sentence, knowing that they will not be subjected to reporting to parole officers or having to follow any probation rules. Under our former Liberal government, between 1997 and 2005, not one prisoner transfer was denied. In 2006, the year the Conservatives took power, 5 transfer requests were denied even though they were approved by US authorities.

It is a shame that the US might have to house our lawbreakers, but on the other hand, the laws broken were broken in the US, not here. Conrad Black is facing consecutive life sentences for his crimes. If he is returned to Canada, he faces a possible 18 months in prison, sentences to run concurrently. Who wouldn't want a deal like that? The Tories 'get tough on crime' slate is a welcome change to what we've seen in the last few years and hopefully it grows.

For too long, we've put the rights of the convicted before the rights of the victims and if the liberal left says the laws we have on the books at present are sufficient, then maybe having the feds step in to enforce them will give some of our judges, and more importantly, our criminals, a much needed wake up call.

Sources: Richard Foot CanWest News Neglecting Convicts
Comments (3)Comments (3) Add CommentsAdd Comments
45
Vote
   


FAHRENHEIT 9/11

I just got finished watching Fahrenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore. I thought the man was supposed to do documentaries. What I saw was a comedy.

He tries to tell us what George W. might be thinking at any given moment and tries (poorly) to be provocative. The film opens with Bush visiting a school and reading to the kids when he receives word the WTC has been struck by airplanes and the country is under attack. Moore times Bush's response to the situation. Seven minutes. Is Bush afraid because his advisers have left him in the lurch? Is he thinking about fishing on his ranch in Texas? Or maybe he's clever enough to know that if these young kids see the POTUS being rushed out of the building under heavy guard, something really, really bad has happened and he doesn't want to start a blind panic? Maybe he's thinking, "Why didn't Clinton take care of bin Laden when he had the chance?" Moore never mentions those options.

The movie won the People's Choice Award as favourite motion picture, but that doesn't tell us much. Is it their favourite because it is a true documentary? Is it their favourite because everyone likes a good laugh now and then? We don't know. The film did win the Palme d'Or at the 2004 film fest in Cannes for best documentary, but then we all know the French hail Jerry Lewis as the funniest man ever to live too. Maybe Moore has replaced him with this film.

Moore takes cheap shots throughout the film at Bush and like many others, especially in America, considers him a lumbering, knuckle-dragging, mouth breather not fit to hold office. Yet in the film, Moore points out that Bush alone had the wherewithal to contrive a cover-up story for the 9/11 massacre that would keep his Saudi friends safe. So, on one hand Bush is a doofus who can't tie his own shoes and on the other, he's a master planner of deception. Which is it Michael? I don't think he can be both.

No one is perfect and I'm not saying Bush is. But he is clever enough to surround himself with people who know what they're doing and he let's them do it. Perhaps that's why he stayed and read to those kids. He knew his staff was already working on the problem and they might have more insight into it than he could have had at the time. Henry Ford was once testifying at a trial of a friend of his. Asked whether he knew the phone number of the friend, Ford replied, " No. Why should I have to? I've got an assistant to know that for me." Okay, Bush is no Henry Ford either, neither are you nor I, but it seems to me they think along the same lines.

Bush is chastised for spending 42% of his time 'on vacation' in Texas during his first few months in office. I guess Moore never heard of a telephone, fax machine or the internet where Bush could easily have conducted business. If some great event caused the President to be sequestered in Air Force One, does Moore think he's automatically out of touch with the rest of the world?

Moore blasts the FBI and CIA for allowing the bin Laden family to fly out of America when such stalwarts as Hollywood idols were grounded. Oh my God! So and so won't make his/her photo shoot. We're truly in trouble now. Let's tune in to Entertaiment Tonight to get their views of this tragic event. Sheesh. Why would that be such a big deal anyway? Because Moore, to try to prove a point, injects clips from the old Dragnet series to show the cops always ask relatives where they can find the suspect. First of all, Osama was the black sheep of the family and it's pretty well known by now that the rest of the family wanted nothing to do with him. Second, the man breeds like a rabbit so how many relatives does he have and how long would it take to interview them all? Third, what would they say? "Last time I saw him, he was headed for the third cave on the left just over the mountain there."

Moore is popular with the left wing media and left wing believers. It seems he is the only truly unbiased man left on the face of the Earth. Therefore his word should be taken at face value as gospel moreso than even that of Jesus. Give me a break. Eveyone knows that a documentary movie maker can put his/her own spin on things. It is up to us to separate the wheat from from the chaff. Moore doesn't even try to hide his bias. He does some great research and has enough facts and figures behind him so that he can defend his views, but he never truly shows the other side of the coin and his arguments can easily be debated and shot down for the propaganda they seem to be.

I know Fahrenheit 9/11 came out years ago, but I refuse to go spend the money to sit in a theatre where I'm no longer allowed to smoke. So I wait until movies show up on TV (we all know they eventually will). I was under the impression that this was to be a true, serious documentary. Instead, it gave me and my wife the good laugh we have missed for the last little while. Maybe that's the genius of Moore. He can make your sides split from laughter.
Comments (16)Comments (16) Add CommentsAdd Comments
93
Vote
   


LEARNING TO READ

I guess it was too much to ask for. People, some of them anyway, just refuse to learn how to read. They seem to be mainly from the hardcore left wing and it makes me wonder if affirmative action worked anywhere in the world. Not from what I've seen so far.

Of course this post is all about what has been happening here on Orble this last week. Surprise, eh? I have read the 'special posts' by 'special people' and see no sign of bigotry, racism or hypocrisy. But some people do. Especially the writer who couldn't read to save her life and just had to do a post to get some friends on line.

One would assume that a reader on this site would know what intelligent debate involves. Apparently not. They don't even know what it means, so how can they pretend to engage in it?

The poster of this tripe says, " If you cannot get your racism across in english, try saying it in german!! That way, if the person does not speak German they cannot recognise the racism. Worked a treat for Hitler!!!! " The question here is, how did Hitler get involved. Never mentioned in any of the other posts, he finally shows up. This is a common ruse used by those who can't debate intelligently. Try to go off on a tangent and pray the other readers will forget the original article and what ideas it conveyed. I suppose it's better than the one-shot snipers who make some silly comment and then crawl back into their holes to disappear, but not by much.

One commenter came up with this gem, "You wouldn't be referring to the blogger who claims he never makes personal attacks on anyone would you?" Perhaps some examples of this in the context they were written would be helpful.

Another commenter says, "Don't you hate when you get shot down in flames
by yourself." Again, not very clear, but if you know how to read, you know what he's referring to. Not our writer. The posted answer? "Of course not." Pretty intelligent there. The writer goes on to leave us with this witticism, "Good thing I'm so familiar with their policy that I'll be so understanding when it happens: 'in the interest of national security' ". We are left to wonder whose policy is being referred to here. The writers of other blogs? The governments of the free countries around the world? Perhaps the people who run Disney World?

The writer goes on to say, "Mass anything is a communal wank. See entry* on 'Patriotic War Freaks'

*there's not really an entry but I can redirect you to some 'special sites' written by 'special people' ". Cute. Let's look at this for a minute. The writer can't debate intelligently and so is therefore reduced to making things up. I suppose in a court of law the judge would say this is lying, but in order not to shatter some frail egos, I won't say that.

A reply by the writer to another commenter went like this, "When you laugh, I laugh too. I call it 'cyber infectious laughter' also known as cyber aids in certain parts of the world. (canada)". Oops. Now the bigotry starts to rear its ugly head. Being from Canada myself and never having heard the term, Canadians are lumped together by trying to say they call cyber laughter, cyber AIDS. And yet another example of making things up when you can't reply intelligently.

Other comments: "In a way this is hilarious shit fight that has been a long time coming. Let me start by saying that two Fictional individuals that reside on Orble have been blowing out bile and bigoted posts for along time." Fictional individuals. I suppose the articles in that case must have also been fictional.
"I'm new to this orble craze. I found arguing with right wing fascists on the Vogue forum more stimulating." Honest in the lack of experience but rather bigoted.
"You're definitely no bigot. And quite frankly your comments were the only ones that made any sense!!!!!!!!!! Beautiful work." Prime example of not knowing how to read and again, very inexperienced if the writer of this article is the only one who makes sense.
This has gone on long enough.

I'll try to make a point even simpler for those with simple minds. Nationality is not race. Race is not religion. Blogs are not the final answer to all the ills of the world. They are the opinion of the writer and you're free to agree or disagree as you see fit. But just because you can't read and have no idea of reading comprehension does not give you any right to put words into someones mouth or twist what was said to help your own over-inflated ego.

Is that easy enough for you to understand? Maybe you should go back and re-read what was written and you can make an intelligent argument after having formed an intelligent opinion.
Comments (4)Comments (4) Add CommentsAdd Comments
54
Vote
   


CAN WE GET IT STRAIGHT?

I recently wrote an article about the hatred the French hold toward Americans and anything that the USA stands for. I will not back down from what I said and neither will I rehash the whole story now.

The article generated a great deal of comment and I was struck by the ignorance of some people who wrote to comment on it. I was called a racist, as I have been in the past, and I'm getting rather tired of it


[ Click here to read more ]
Read MoreRead More Comments (6)Comments (6) Add CommentsAdd Comments
81
Vote
   


PAY ATTENTION

I recently wrote an article on anti-Americanism. Wow, was I ever surprised by the response. I didn't think there were that many people out there who just hate the States outright for no good reason.

My insomnia kicked in last night so I thought I'd cruise through some of the authors on this site and that opened my eyes even more. It really makes you shake your head when you read some of this stuff. Some is good, some is bad and some is just junk. But one article stuck in my mind


[ Click here to read more ]
Read MoreRead More Comments (13)Comments (13) Add CommentsAdd Comments
80
Vote
   


YOU DECIDE

Following is an article by Michael Coren of the Toronto Sun. While I might disagree with him on a number of issues, I think he hit this on on the head. My friend, SL Bradish has railed against the liberal press for some time and her readers insist she switch from Fox News to the 'accepted' media, ABC, CBS, NBC and the like to get the true version of politics and history. SL is a big C conservative and I don't always agree with her either although I have to admire her ability to back up what she writes on these blogs. If more people would get their heads out of their a-holes and actually read what she writes, they might become better writers themselves.

Regardless, the article is printed in its entirety and it is here for your viewing pleasure. Beforehand though, I must say that I've had idiots who don't read my entire columns and see where the information comes from. Perhaps I am on a different astral plane than these folks and they can't see a simple report for what it is. Don't come back to me over this. I didn't write it. I am just reporting it verbatim. Simple enough for you


[ Click here to read more ]
Read MoreRead More Comments (4)Comments (4) Add CommentsAdd Comments
45
Vote
   


ANTI AMERICANISM

From the start, let me say that I've done my share of America bashing. I love watching Leno's 'Jay-Walking' segments and Rick Mercer's 'Talking to Americans' bits. It makes me feel superior somehow, even though I know it is all in jest and every country has citizens who have some degree of ignorance about not only their own country but the rest of the world to boot. But I just got finished watching a PBS special called 'The Anti Americans' and I must say I was appalled.

They spoke with the French, the Poles and the British and by far the French were the worst of the lot. The Poles and Brits, while perhaps not too enamoured with US foreign policy right now, recognized that without the USA, they'd be in a lot worse shape then what they are. They've come to see the hamburger and Coke as signs of prosperity and value the idea that America would invest in their countries. While they may not agree with the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, they certainly do appreciate fast food, American know-how when it comes to building cars, American television and the protection America offers its allies against enemies both foreign and domestic. In other words, they know which side of the bread their butter is on and afford the USA the respect it deserves


[ Click here to read more ]
Read MoreRead More Comments (52)Comments (52) Add CommentsAdd Comments
132
Vote
   


More Posts
1 Posts
1 Posts
3 Posts
256 Posts dating from January 2007
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:
Moderated by Zach Larkins
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]