The Proletariat Congress

That-a man, he kisses real nice-a! She said, after locking lips with her foreign lover.

Or at least that’s how it is according to a survey done through the social website WAYN.com, ranking men from various countries as lovers based on feedback from female respondents from 50 different countries. It seems that the Italians are really the true lovers in the end, and it’s the Germans who lack grace.

The Germans rank the lowest, labelled as being “selfish” in bed, closely rivalled by the Swedes who are much too quick, and the third last place Dutch who were too rough. Americans were considered to be “too dominant”, the Welsh “soppy” (excessively sentimental; mawkish)…

And who would be considered too loud? While most would think Americans, it’s actually the Scots who are considered to be too loud, with the Greeks as “too smelly” (it’s olive oil baby!) and Russians as “too hairy” and the English “too chubby”. Though it’s probably not as bad as being “too sweaty” as the Turks were…

But in light of this, who did rank well? The Italians placed first, followed by the French. But we all knew that. This is general knowledge. The others who ranked well? Not who’d you might expect…

Ireland, South Africa, Australia, Spain, Denmark, New Zealand, Brazil and Canada all ranked well after the Italian and French.

This begs the question… how is it possible for male lovers to suddenly turn sour south of the border? One minute you’re in Windsor then next in Detroit… Is this the same invisible line when it comes to weather?

There are men who dispute this of course. After all, who wants to lose out when there’s much at stake? And it’s not just men in the bed at this point. If it was, she must’ve gotten bored watching him…  And besides, how can someone be ranked as a lover without a test drive?

Of course, there is one crucial part missing… is the woman a cold fish in bed to begin with.

World’s ‘wurst’ lovers?

When faced with life or death, most people unless they know that death is inevitable will choose life because they know that they have families that love them and wish them good health. To lose a family member hurts and those who are faced with this know it and display the will to live and to once again laugh and share in the merriment of life with their friends and family.

One British woman, Lorraine Allard, decided that she would rather not. Instead, she refused to accept medical treatment for a disease that decades of research and sacrifice have long since learned how to fight and nearly cure. The woman foolishly chose to not accept chemotherapy, and carried to term an unborn foetus at the cost of her life.

Either way, there was still going to be a ‘death’.

If she had accepted the treatment the doctors felt she needed, the cancer wouldn’t have advanced into the stage where it would be incurable. But, she didn’t listen to the doctors when told that she would have to abort the barely development foetus in order to be able to receive the life saving treatment that would have made the difference for the children she already had and depended on her.

Accept a medical abortion in order to allow her to fight back at the bowel cancer that had spread to her liver or bring another child into an over populated world? These were the choices.

She didn’t accept the treatment and carried the foetus as long as she could before an early labour was induced, allowing her to deliver the foetus naturally at 26 weeks, giving the child a mere 50% chance at survival.

Some forums on the internet have people praising her for a ‘sacrifice’ and speak a though she were brave for her choice. As though she was truly a model human. The media (such as FOX, Daily Mail) have used positive words to describe her actions. They have chosen words that convey a noble action when the action was anything but brave.

It was foolish. Simply put, it was foolish. She left behind a husband who now has to bring up four children alone. At the time when her doctors suggested that she abort the foetus for medical reasons, she had three daughters, two of whom are old enough to remember this, to know that their mother would rather die than fight back against cancer and live to see them grow up.

Her son, the one born at the cost of her life could very well have issues over this if he cannot accept or handle the fact that he “killed mom”.

The daughters who remember could very well grow up to resent their brother, who they will associate with the death of their mother.

People are free to make their own choices, and if those choices are foolish, the rest of us are free to mock those people for such choices. This woman made such a choice and people shouldn’t be praising her for dying and leaving the man who loves her without the mother of his children to face the world.

The spineless, cowardly Canadian Conservatives have blindly caved into American pressure once again. The ever weak-kneed Tories have decided roll over on Bush’s command and remove the US and Israel from its torture watch list because the two allege that they would never be involved in such inhumane activities nor should they be associated with rogue states like Iran and Syria. Those states engaged in torture. The US simply engages tactics to up the extraction of information using provisory amenity readjustment; it’s not really torture if the Americans do it…

Nor is it torture when the Israelis kill bystanders in their fight against Hamas or when they leave eight hundred thousand or so people in the Gaza strip without power. It’s not torture when they do it because they’re “protecting” Israelis from those poor Palestinians civilians… err, I mean, evil Islamic terrorists who just want to live in their homeland. Never mind that this affects everything including hospitals, medical clinics, water works, houses et cetera. Of course, that doesn’t matter to Israelis because the Palestinians aren’t “God’s Chosen”.

Gaza City plunged into darkness

Rather than worrying about the people who are suffering, I mean, “enjoying” their provisory amenity readjustment, the resolutely obtuse Harper administration has elected to willfully ignore the plight of those in these two nations in favour of international relations. Never mind that Canadians would rather keep rogue nations on the torture watch list, even if they are our “allies”. Of course, if they were truly worried about international relations, they would be in contact with our NATO allies who have qualms about engaging in such inhumane activities, with a flagrant disregard for human rights.

Like the good Harper ass-sucking Tory he is, Maxime Bernier, the Foreign Affairs Minister has come out (sorry, it’s not a closet; Harper won’;t give up the key for it), assuring America and Israel that it was simply an error and that it was never meant to be. He attempted to make it crystal clear that they, the Tories would never see to displease their extraterritorial overlords ever again. This pleased Israel’s Ambassador to Canada, Alan Baker, who had been most displeased upon seeing the document naming Israel along with the rogue state of Iran. He was most insulted but was placated upon receiving reassurances from Bernier that it would never happen again.

The US Ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins has uttered his displeasure with the government by terming it “offensive” that his country was considered on par with such insolent nations like China, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Afghanistan and Syria. He had a wee tantrum has he told a well-controlled press conference about the gross error in judgement made by the puppet government in Ottawa, saying it was, “Quite frankly it’s absurd. For us to be on a list like that is just ridiculous.”

How can it be ‘ridiculous’ when the two nations are known to engage in such activities that are contrary to the well being of others in the world? How is it not torture? Is it only torture when your enemy does it? Or because you’ve made the claim that you’re not actually torturing people because you’re simply trying to protect the world from terrorists? Sorry, playtime’s over children, let the adults take over and you can go sit in the corner and think about the crimes you’ve committed as you wear that lovely orange state-issued jump suit that you’ve given to the detainees at Gitmo.

Canada to rewrite Manual US criticized

Israeli envoy slams torture claim

Ottawa reverses torture stance

Canadian FM regrets ‘torture list‘

Here lies the daughter,
here lies the father,
here lies the sister,
here lies the brother,
here lie husband and wife,
and yet there are only two bodies in the grave
16th Century French poem

Christians, as well as Jews and Muslims will be the first to tell you that God created man and woman; two people named Adam and Eve. They will tell you that these were the first humans that God created.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So, God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. — Genesis 1:26-27

This is a fine starting point for their beliefs. These groups are happy with this. Now, in the same tale, we learn that the firs two humans take God’s advice, hop behind a nearby bush and fuck like bunnies, thus producing Cain then Abel. So far this makes sense. You’ve got the plug and the outlet, thus producing electricity because the wiring is there. Now, here’s where the problem arises… Cain kills Abel, who didn’t have any children. Yet, Cain is able to find a woman and have a son by her and find a city.

Where does this mystery woman come from? There is no name mentioned. One theory says that God didn’t create just Adam and Eve. He created two others; two nameless ones in Genesis 1:1-31 and creates Adam and Eve in Genesis 2:1-25… Yet this is ignored and it is said that the first two people created were indeed Adam and Eve. If this is so, where the hell does Cain find a woman to have raunchy pre-historical caveman sex with?

At this point, you may be inclined to ask, what does this have to do with anything?

If you recall, last year there was a publicised case of two German siblings separated at birth, who met later in life and wound up having two children before the state interfered and took the, away. There is another case now, a British couple had their marriage declared illegal by a justice, who annulled the marriage.

Parted-at-birth twins ‘married’

The former Liberal Democrat MP [Lord Alton] raised the couple’s case during a House of Lords debate on the Human Fertility and Embryology Bill in December.

“They were never told that they were twins,” he told the Lords.

“They met later in life and felt an inevitable attraction, and the judge had to deal with the consequences of the marriage that they entered into and all the issues of their separation.”

Two consenting adults had their marriage declared invalid because of their blood relationship.

Followers of religion would say that it is because God wouldn’t want it and that incest is a sin. Yet 2 Peter 2:7-8, Genesis 19:15 and Genesis 19:32-36 do not condemn it and even go as far as to show God’s seemingly silent approval. He didn’t condemn it, yet he damned the folks of the city.

Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven — Genesis 19:24

This happened after Lot fled with his family. After he lay with his two virgin daughters; he knew them he did. Yet no condemnation is noted in this segment of the Bible.

The place where the loudest condemnation is heard from, is Leviticus, the “everything’s a sin” book of the Old Testament. See Leviticus 18:6, 20:11-12, 20:14.

When laying out what relationships are forbidden, no one seems to take into account that Genesis doesn’t have anything condemning incest; it even features it as part of the moral story. Once again, selective learning at work.

Morality interfering with the privacy that people deserve in their lives.

The view we take here is that there’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation. — Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau

This was the statement given when the late Prime Minister was still the Minister of Justice, who led the movement to remove laws regarding homosexuality from the Criminal Code of Canada. Now if only laws regarding incest were removed. There are laws that prevent people in a position of authority from misusing that authority. There are also rules protecting minors; the same laws that govern the age for consensual sexual relations.

The sky didn’t fall and civilization didn’t fall to its knees when homosexual marriages were legalised.

The sky didn’t fall and civilization didn’t fall to its knees when homosexuals were permitted to adopt.

Popular belief, supported by science says that people with close blood relation are more likely to produce offspring who are born with deformities or some kind of disease. Yet, society permits those who possess hereditary diseases to reproduce because it would be discrimination if we didn’t let them, yet it’s not if we tell others they can’t.

Or those mothers who don’t take care of themselves during their pregnancy and drink or smoke… They’re still allowed to have their children, even if the child is a burden on the system the rest of their natural lives.

If there is a worry about incest, then end anonymous sperm and egg donations; our world is one little cozy global village these days. What difference does it make? We have DNA testing. But then we’ll have people suing others for child support, and there will be fewer donors over all. But at least then you’ll know who your daddy is. Oh and those proponents of “privacy” rights of the mother and the child…

And the list goes on.

Think about it, no less than fifty years ago, it was common to think of interracial marriages as offensive. They were taboo. You didn’t want your little precious white bread daughter marrying some dirty, filthy mud man. This isn’t to say humanity is over this childish stage; there are still people who think like this, but would be laughed out of wherever they went.

When will the double standard end? Probably when people get over the ‘ick’ factor…