An exercise for the reader.
Scenario 1:
Ontario taxpayers will pay $12.3 million to buy a controversial housing project in southern Ontario that has been occupied by aboriginal protesters since late February, Premier Dalton McGuinty disclosed Thursday.
Scenario 2:
Canada and the United States closed a long-standing trade dispute over softwood lumber on Saturday after ironing out final details of a deal on the sidelines of World Trade Organization (WTO) talks...
Under the terms of the agreement, Canadian lumber companies will get a refund of about $4 billion of the $5 billion they have handed over in duties.
According to Canadian right-wing wankers, which of the above represents an excellent agreement which involves making certain financial sacrifices to bring a satisfactory end to a long-standing dispute allowing us all to move forward, and which represents a disgusting, spineless capitulation to a bunch of bullies who could only be appeased by paying them off?
Show your work.
2 comments:
OK, let's have a crack at it using right-winger math:
Scenario 1:
Dalton McGuinty ~ liberal
liberal = bad
bad ~ disgusting
therefore, liberal = disgusting
and, disgusting Liberals must make disgusting agreements
therefore, Scenario 1 is a disgusting, spineless capitulation, etc.
Scenario 2:
Canada = country ruled by right-wingers
right-wingers = good
good ~ excellent
therefore, right-wingers = excellent
and, excellent right-wingers must make excellent agreements
therefore, Scenario 2 represents an excellent agreement, etc.
A tricky question, CC. Thankfully, it all comes down to fundamentals:
Fundamental neo-con axiom:
"Might makes right." The rule of law is therefore irrelevant.
So, if you can convince the mightier nation (US) to make any sort of concessions you, it's always an excellent victory. Hooray!
However, if you make any sort of concessions to the weaker nation (First Nations) it's always spineless capitulation.
Wait, you say? What about morals? Aren't right-wingers supposed to be about morals? Sorry, that's so-cons, not neo-cons.
Fundamental so-con axiom:
Traditional "Christian" morals are of utmost importance.
So, an agreement with the Christian, God-fearing Americans is always excellent.
However, an agreement with (stereotyping) lazy, drunken (/stereotyping) and possibly godless Indians is generally disgusting.
Hold on, you say? Doesn't one cost a billion dollars and the other only 12 million? Don't right-wingers care about financial responsibility? Sorry, that's only fiscal conservatives. Fundamental fiscal conservative axiom:
Maximize profit for private investors.
So an agreement that costs $1 of public money to make $3 of private money is excellent; even when it should have been free.
However, an agreement that spends public money for no profit is disgusting.
Post a Comment