Good news — Bill C-30, the warrantless wiretapping “you’re either with us or you’re with the child pornographers“, is dead in the water.

The bad news — the Harper government has renamed it Bill C-55, made it secret until it’s been introduced to Parliament — because, after all, why do the peons need to know when their rights are being trampled on? — and have Bill C-12 (a.k.a. PIPEDA) waiting in the ranks just in case.

So what does Tyrant-in-Waiting Harper have in store for us with C-55? Let’s have a look at some of the highlights:

2. Section 183 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“police officer” means any officer, constable or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace;

Translation:

We can hire someone under the auspices of “public peace” to spy on you; we’re no longer limiting this to just cops.

Next:

184.4 A police officer may intercept, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, a private communication if the police officer has reasonable grounds to believe that
(a) the urgency of the situation is such that an authorization could not, with reasonable diligence, be obtained under any other provision of this Part;
(b) the interception is immediately necessary to prevent an offence that would cause serious harm to any person or to property; and
(c) either the originator of the private communication or the person intended by the originator to receive it is the person who would commit the offence that is likely to cause the harm or is the victim, or intended victim, of the harm.

Meaning:

Any “police officer” (see previous section), can spy on you if they believe you’re going to break the law. How do you know they believe it? Why, you just have to take their word for it. Oh, and it’s not just limited to the internet; they can spy on you through your phone, by placing a bug in your place (or some other similar means), intercepting your mail, grabbing post-it notes stuck to your computer, etc. Also, if the “police” “believe” you’re likely to be the victim of a crime, they can spy on you as well. Basically, you’re going to be spied on. Period.

Then:

(1) The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness shall, as soon as possible after the end of each year, prepare a report relating to
(a) authorizations for which that Minister and agents to be named in the report who were specially designated in writing by thatMinister for the purposes of section 185 applied and to the interceptions made under those authorizations in the immediately preceding year;
(b) authorizations given under section 188 for which peace officers to be named in the report who were specially designated by that Minister for the purposes of that section applied and to the interceptions made under
those authorizations in the immediately preceding year; and
(c) interceptions made under section 184.4 in the immediately preceding year if the interceptions
relate to an offence for which proceedings may be commenced by the Attorney General of Canada.

Translation:

The Minister of Public Safety is going to prepare a yearly report on who’s spying on you. Unfortunately, there’s no mention that this report needs to be made public, and furthermore, unless the spying results in charges, there’s no need to include any details in there (i.e. if you’re being spied on for no purpose, there’s no reason anyone needs to know about it). This is further spelled out in additional sections; only where charges have been laid does anything need to be reported on.

Granted that the bill isn’t a completed document yet, and it rests on the existing Criminal Code so my analysis isn’t exactly thorough (and to be honest, I would love for someone to prove me wrong), but I can’t help but question if any of the clauses above (which pretty much comprise the entire current version), do what the bill’s preamble claim that they do:

(a) requires the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Attorney General of each province to report on the interceptions of private communications made under section 184.4;
(b) provides that a person who has been the object of such an interception must be notified of the interception within a specified period;
(c) narrows the class of individuals who can make such an interception;
and
(d) limits those interceptions to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

As usual, I invite you to read the whole thing yourself and, if possible, have a gander at the sections of the Criminal Code that it’s attempting to change. And while you’re at it, I would challenge you to ask who, exactly, all of these laws are intended to benefit. It’s unlikely that Joe Commonman could list 1% of all the laws he’s being subjected to, yet is expected to abide by, and simultaneously isn’t allowed to claim ignorance of in the courts (unless, of course, you’re Rob Ford).

Common Law it most certainly is not.

I know that this is completely out off the “Toronto”, “City”, “Life” categories, but as you may probably know from reading this blog, social justice and abuse of police powers weigh pretty heavy on my heart.

So it was with dismay and disbelief that I watched US news networks last night vilify and outright lie about Christopher Dorner during his final hours in San Bernardino County, Los Angeles.

The fact of the matter is that Dorner was one of the last few good cops left, a guy who believed in justice and law, a guy who saw the ranks of his fellow law-enforcers filled with racists, liars, and the kinds of criminal scum that not only should be behind bars for a very long time, but should also never be allowed to carry guns and badges and be allowed to call themselves “justice”.

How Dorner went about bringing attention to the criminality he witnessed was misguided and, as he himself realized, ultimately doomed. He knew that the media would demonize him, focusing on his actions and completely ignoring or even misrepresenting the reasons behind them. The fact that he killed police officers is and was presented as valid justification for his assassination but his own recollections of police brutality and murder perpetrated on civilians (resulting with him being fired from the force instead), are hardly mentioned, if at all, except by “fringe lunatics” like me who believe people, regardless of their position in life, should be held to account for their actions. That means a fair and open trial in front of a non-corrupted judge, and ending with incarceration if found guilty.

To make matters worse, I was listening to police scanners live as his cabin was being raided and comparing it to what TV news was reporting, and the amount of misinformation and just outright lies was stunning to witness first-hand. There were reports coming over the dispatch, for example, of police putting a “burner(s)” in place, setting it / them off, shouting “Burn this motherfucker!”, calling for the fire department, and then raiding the cabin. The news, on the other hand, was speculating about why Dorner was setting his cabin on fire (or they’re probably smoke or “flash-bang” grenades set of by the loving police who only want to take him alive if at all possible), and debating why he would be shooting off ammunition (as he was being burned alive).

(Incidentally, I assisted Max Blumenthal, one of the few non-official sources, and one of the few to question the official story, to reconnect to the police scanner feeds when they were taken offline):

Did big media not know what was going on? How was it that some schmuck in Toronto knew exactly what was happening, and they didn’t? Is it possible that they’re so completely incompetent that they couldn’t tune into the publicly available police scanners (RadioReference.com, if you’re interested), to monitor the situation, or is it more likely that they were busy spinning and manipulating the story while it was happening? After all, it’s one thing to simply not report on what’s happening (as the police were demanding of everyone, including Twitter and Facebook users), but it’s something else entirely to spout off plain old lies and misinformation, backed up with so many “experts” waiting on hand to bring validity to it all.

I’m genuinely sorry for Mr. Dorner, his family, and the people who’s lives he took (assuming one buys official reports, all of which are currently unproven accusations). None of it would’ve happened if the police he was surrounded by weren’t such rotten criminals, if the media and the agencies responsible for keeping them in check weren’t in direct collusion, and if justice, truth, and the law prevailed. Will anyone bother to look into the upper echelons that Dorner directly accused of the highest corruption, or will their criminality be buried even deeper? It’s tragic that Mr. Dorner felt he had to resort to such drastic actions just to be heard, and more tragic still that even now the demonization of those who would stand up for the truth would be carried out so viciously. And before you remind me that none of Dorner’s allegations have ever been proven, I’ll remind you that Dorner was also never tried in a court of law before the cops decided it’d be more expedient just to kill him on the spot, and that big media haven’t raised on iota of criticism.

I guess George Orwell was right … in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

If you consider yourself a “revolutionary” by this standard, you’ll probably also be interested to hear the police dispatch from San Bernardino County. I took the liberty of recording a number of channels live, as it was happening. Contrast what you hear against what the “news” are busy pumping out even today.

Unfortunately, I haven’t had a chance to arrange the audio files so they’re somewhat scattered, but here is what actually happened last night, along with Dorner’s own words in what big media love to term his “manifesto” (because, don’t you know, all the crazies have one):

http://www.torontocitylife.com/downloads/Christopher_Dorner.zip

Alright, I know that the headline is just plain old over-the-top hyperbole, but to hear Rob Ford pull this old nugget out of his ass again requires no less.

After all, this is the fourth time in as many years that Robbie’s “taking on”, “tackling”, “dismantling”, or otherwise dealing with his “guaranteed…GUARANTEED!!” election promise of getting rid of the Land Transfer Tax, one of the biggest forms of income for City Hall and hence the best way to fuck over the city for money for things like plowing snow, fixing roads, collecting garbage, etc.

I mean, I get it … who likes to pay taxes? And this particular one adds no value to something you don’t even really own — unbeknownst to most “home owners” within the Commonwealth, the Crown actually owns all the land and they are essentially renting it. But City Hall is fairly limited in where and how it can tax people, so taking away a major source of revenue will produce a massive deficit of the sort that Ford has thus far only (and falsely), attributed to his predecessors.

Essentially, Ford’s plan, which includes no way to make up for the lost revenue other than the non-existent “gravy” that proved to be just so much bullshit, would leave Toronto in a huge financial pickle. And Ford’s solution is to simply keep repeating the same old, proved-false rhetoric (like that tired Public-Private-Partnership nonsense that never materialized).

It probably won’t matter — Ford will once again toss his fellow Councillors under the bus for refusing to support his insane “plan”, even though he’s unwilling (incapable?) of putting forth any viable solutions, and will once again do nothing but cast blame and aspersions for once again failing to do what he “GUARANTEED!” he would do, over, and over, and over again.

Reality: 4, Ford: 0

With the recent dumping of snow that fell on Toronto I thought it’d be a neat idea to once again revisit the City of Toronto Archives to see how we, with all of our modern technology, fared against Torontonians of the past.

Sadly, the people of the the old Toronto dealt with the snow way better than we did. For starters, they didn’t always depend on rubber tires or internal combustion engines for getting around … check out the four-wheeled, woman-powered infant conveyance here:

Apparently, this method of transport was so safe that no one, including the children in the drivers’ seats, gave a second thought to wandering out onto Lake Ontario in it. I suppose it was definitely safer walking on the lake during the winter than in the summer — lot fewer big ships to watch out for:

The lake also offered natural relief to traffic congestion. Road packed? …

…why, just toss your best gal in the sidecar and hit the waters:

Apparently the compact “gravity-powered man car” was also quite popular, being able to go off road and being so easy to navigate that even young children could drive it. But the inability to go on level surfaces or uphill proved to be this form of transport’s undoing:

But, of course, some inventions of the era were so effective that they endured well into the modern day. Take the common “foot-car”, for example:

We can certainly learn a lost from the past, especially when modern technology fails us. Like they saying goes, don’t toss the baby out with the bathwater … unless, of course, it’s out on the lake, the safest place for newborns to be.

There are only so many “snow” puns out there, okay?

Here’s I spent my birthday, courtesy of the new Bud Light Platinum and UNIUN nightclub:

This was a launch event headlined by Diplo who, after numerous downings of the aluminum-clad, delightfully strong (6%), and genuinely and surprisingly tasty beers (not my regular but one I can honestly recommend), had little chance of appearing in any of my photos. But I did cut a rug, mosh it up, bump up against many anonymous sweaty people, and Sarah and I got to catch up with some old social media pals of mine I hadn’t seen in a while, like Zach Bussey…

…and the incredibly elusive @clickflicka:

Our media passes, replete with a cordoned off section that smacked of VIP, put the cherry on top of an already fantastic night. And I was heartened to discover that even in my advanced age, I can still shake my caboose with the youngins.

This is not something I thought I’d ever be saying in my entire life, but Christie Blatchford actually hit the nail squarely on the head in a November 29 piece for the National Post (which makes it doubly stunning).

In it, she talks about Clayton Ruby, the lawyer who worked for free with Paul Magder to bring Rob Ford before the judge on the conflict of interest thing. I was instantly thinking she’d be ripping into the “lefties” who banded together to make this happen, but instead, and rather shockingly, she directly concedes that this is no left-wing conspiracy.

She puts an almost-human spin on both Ruby and Magder, describing some of their past work and the types of causes they put their weight behind. And rather than taking one side or another (i.e. the “left” or “right”), she exposes a much more direct and accurate picture of what motivated both men:

In April of 2010, Toronto Star food writer Corey Mintz wrote a piece headlined “My dinner with Clayton Ruby.”

…

Mr. Mintz was doing the cooking. As his friends discussed the “polarizing allegiance to the left or right,” Mr. Ruby cut through the verbal red tape, Mr. Mintz wrote.

“I think it’s all abstractly meaningless,” Mr. Ruby said. “There are people who do good in the world. And there are people who do not. And we make judgments.”

And that, I suspect, has much more to do with the efforts to fell Rob Ford than anything else: They do good; Mr. Ford, in their eyes, does not.

It’s interesting to compare this to Blatchford’s earlier pieces where she doesn’t come across in quite the same way:

November 26: “So, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has been given the boot from office because an opportunistic citizen hired a smart and politically savvy lawyer who found a club of an arcane statute with which to tie the hands of a judge who was willing to play ball.”

November 23: “That week in court refreshed my memory, as the lawyers say. It was never that I loved Mr. Ford, either the detail of his politics or who he is particularly.

Rather, I liked who he wasn’t.

He wasn’t David Miller, his pretty-boy predecessor. He wasn’t the late Jack Layton. He wasn’t Sandra Bussin, the former councillor. He wasn’t Olivia Chow, another former councillor, Mr. Layton’s widow, who may yet return to run for the mayoralty (but only, of course, if “the people” demand it).

Mr. Ford wasn’t a part of that soft-left ruling class which, during my time at City Hall in the mid-1990s, ran the show, and appears to still. He wasn’t an earnest subscriber to the conventions of downtown city politics, with its sure convictions about What We Believe In.

I remember that so vividly, the smugness, the preening disdain for outsiders, even if, sometimes especially if, they were actual citizens.”

Maybe this is just some opportunistic writing now that it’s looking like Ford’s popularity isn’t all it was cracked up to be (how very Mamolliti of her). Still, the piece is out there, and I’m left with a profound sense of confusion.

Adding to this is feedback from newspapers like the Sun. Okay, well, that one’s perhaps a little more understandable ever since Ford made it clear he and they weren’t friends. Still, writers like Joe Warmington are usually through-and-through Fordites, often quoted by people like Newstalk’s Jerry Agar to prove just how much mainstream support the mayor has.

Just look at Warmington’s latest about a scuffle between Ford and Adam Vaughan:

But many of his leftists enemies — not all — have shown themselves to be graceless. Others have acted like classless lowlifes — the kind who would make fun of his weight, bother him at home with his kids and spread hateful, and hurtful lies, like him going to a gun club when he didn’t or incorrectly saying he called a 911 operator a “bitch” when the tape proves it did not happen.

To be fair, Warmington mentions Ford’s conflict of interest fiasco in this article, recognizing that Rob is somewhat responsible for some of his own mess, but it doesn’t quite stack up to the finger wagging that Warmington gave the mayor when the verdict was delivered:

In reality it would never have ever been put in the judiciary’s hands had Ford shown some humility and displayed a modicum of tolerance for people, and views that don’t walk lockstep with his.

Self-destructive or self-sabotage are other words. It’s as if he prefers the turmoil and conflict more than agreement. Every scandal he’s been involved in, he created himself.

He won’t go to Pride Parade. Dumb.

Talking on cellphone while driving. Avoidable.

Getting into ruckuses with reporters or comedians at his home. Childish.

In this instance, like he did when he slipped and fell at the Grey Cup event on the field in Nathan Phillips Square last week, he sacked himself.

“It is difficult to accept an error in judgment defence based essentially on a stubborn sense of entitlement and a dismissive and confrontational attitude,” wrote the judge.

He played chicken with a judge and lost. Had Ford played the game a little bit it would not have come to this. Had he listened to his peers that he was in conflict and not voted on his own motion, there would be no story. There was no need for any of this. In a culture of us and them, he made it easy for them.

Compare this further with Warmington’s most recent representations of Don Cherry as he backs Ford:

November 28: “Cherry did that himself (get flack for public commentary) last hockey season for emotional comments about three former NHL enforcers and never looked back.

He said now that Ford has done that, there needs to be some compassion and let him get back to doing his job.

“Here’s a guy that has dedicated his life to helping under-privileged kids and this is what happens to him?” Cherry said. “The guy made a mistake with the letterhead (and voting) no doubt. But he didn’t waste or lose billions of dollars like so many other governments have. His was a minor mistake. A human mistake.”

The Hockey Night in Canada legend made headlines two years ago at Ford’s swearing-in by telling Ford’s enemies to “put that in your pipe, you left-wing kooks.”

So he’s not surprised by what’s happening now.

“Let’s lay the cards on the table. The only reason this happened, the only reason, was because of the left-wingers out to get him,” Cherry said.

It has been difficult for him to watch.”

November 29: “Ford has no one to blame for this mess but himself since everybody from his brother Doug, to Don Cherry to deputy mayor Doug Holyday warned him to stop leading with his chin.”

Again, and shockingly so, Warmington is one of the most balanced voices at the Toronto Sun at the present time. Still, with only a day to separate his take on Ford’s situation, Warmington still meekly manages to flip flop more than a fish freshly tossed onto dry land.

And that right there is what I see as being the crux of the problem. It’s not a fight between the “left” and “right”, it’s a toss-up between those who choose a side and obstinately stay with it, even to the point of doing a 180-degree turn in their thinking whenever the breeze changes, and a more centrist approach that is willing to look at all sides with a more critical eye. In other words, the right/left stick bullheadedly with an ideology, often resorting to a 1984-like “doublethink” in order to maintain their blind allegiance.

Of course, I can’t say that this is true across the board, but it certainly seems to be more predominant with those who identify themselves as “right”-leaning (though I’ve seen plenty of examples of exactly the same thing among the “lefty” types too). I couldn’t even imagine the shock to their system when they realize that their beliefs are in line with the most repressive and conformist sort of communist-socialism one could conjure up.

Then again, these same people believe that the extreme right belongs to the Nazis — National Socialists – an extreme form of collectivized,  totalitarian control — and the left to the Communists — an extreme form of collectivized, totalitarian form of control. Only rhetoric, lack of critical thought, and instantaneous doublethink could possibly keep such things separate.

To anyone who is critical, none of this sits well.

Take Adam Vaughan, for example. This Councillor is typified as the anti-Ford at City Hall. He is the predominant “leftie” who the Sun holds up as the source of all evils in their nonsensical didactic.

Because Vaughan has publicly butted heads with Ford, he is placed by the “right” as the man who played the leading role in the mayor’s downfall, and furthermore, that he’s one of the major figures responsible for the “gravy” at City Hall. Ipso facto, anyone who doesn’t blindly follow Ford must necessarily love Vaughan, and by extension waste and gravy and so on and so forth. You get the idea.

That would have to make me a Vaughan-loving “leftie” then, wouldn’t it?

Only problem is that I don’t subscribe to that kind of stupidity. I’m no more enamoured with Vaughan than I am with Ford.

I mean, Vaughan has had fewer dictatorial tendencies thus far, but there’s something I learned recently (and about which I’ll be writing), that make it obvious that both Ford and Vaughan are cut from a very similar cloth.

Point I’m trying to make is that we need to decide where we stand, not where our politicians stand, or what rhetorical one-liners we want to support, etc. Yeah, that does mean we all need to dig a bit deeper, follow politics a bit more closely, read the news (all of it!) with a critical eye, and be willing to take a stand when something doesn’t fit with our own souls.

Sometimes that might even mean — *gasp* — changing our minds about someone!

It’s clear that a large percentage of the population isn’t doing any of this.

And by the way, next time you’re hearing about or discussing the Nazi Holocaust, or the rise of the Communist regime, or any one of the multitudes of evil that spring up around the globe, and you’re wondering how people would allow themselves to fall under such systems en masse (and once you’re under it, good luck!), try comparing what happened then to what’s happening at this very moment.

Blatchford mentioned it, and people like Clayton Ruby are keenly aware of it. And the similarities are horrific.

Crude rage faces say it better than my words can at the moment…

…true story.

Not long ago I was accused of being brainwashed because I follow politics. I tried to get more information about my alleged brainwashing from my interlocutor and was bluntly told that I never used to follow politics, so why now?

This person also reads (or at least used to read), TCL, so really would’ve been fairly familiar with how long I’d been following politics; and when I look back through my old posts I realize it’s been for a lot longer than I’d been “brainwashed” for. In fact, the only real thing that’s changed is that I’ve become critical, begun to dig a lot deeper, and think about things a lot more thoroughly.

In other words, I’m “brainwashed” because I now think and express myself a lot more freely.

Uh-huh.

I have regular discussions about politics with this person and am often confronted with their obstinate support of the Harper government. This, at least in part, is one of the reasons I’ve been so vocal (if the word can be applied to writing), about my criticisms of the numerous ways that he and his gang are trying to destroy freedom in Canada.

By “freedom” I’m not alluding to some vague notions of self-expression (though that is certainly true), I’m talking about simple physical freedoms like being able to walk down the street without fear of arbitrary arrest, or being free to express simple opinions and truths without having the government crack down on you, harass you, or spy on you secretly.

This same person, the one who accused me of being brainwashed, came from a repressive communist country where such things were a regular thing, so I assumed that this kind of thing wouldn’t sit well with them. Yet when faced with stark evidence like Bill C-38 or Bill C-11, and expecting at least a modicum of thought, some skepticism, maybe a willingness to dig a bit deeper, even if just to prove me wrong, I instead got derision.

The best retort they can muster is to call me dumb (and brainwashed), and to demand to know why such things concern me.

The real question is, why don’t they concern you?! (And I’m brainwashed)

It’s not tough to imagine, then, with people willing to live with their eyes and ears covered like this, that Harper continues on his merry way to making Canada a massive repressive regime within which citizens are expected to cower in fear and dare not speak ill of the government lest they be “disappeared” into some dark dungeon, indefinitely, with no trial, judge, or jury. The same citizens are actually fully supporting such moves, and they sure don’t want to hear how such things could possibly be bad (even if they’ve lived through such terrors themselves). Heck, why would you even need evidence at that point?

If you’re still paying attention, though, there is still some hope.

To start off with, it’s interesting to compare Harper’s latest bit of despotic maneuvering, Bill S-7, with America’s NDAA.

In the US, the NDAA (innocuously disguised as a recurring military funding bill), includes a variety of passages that allow for the indefinite detention of American citizens (in fact, anyone at all), without trial, in military Gulags not unlike Guantanamo Bay. With Bill C-38, Harper has allowed the US to legally waltz across the border with complete impunity and “remove” people at any time they wish.

Not to be outdone, of course, the Harper government is introducing Bill S-7, the “Combating Terrorism Act” (the catch-all term for everything and anything designed to separate you from your rights and freedoms these days), which has many of the same features as the NDAA. Here are some highlights to expect should this thing make it through:

• People may be put under “preventive arrest” for up to three days.
• The “preventive arrest” may be due to an alleged association with a “terrorist” (which may include everything from environmentalists to anyone critical of the government), alleged knowledge of a “terrorist” or their dealings, or — my favourite — being suspected of future involvement with terrorists.
• As with all good Kafkaesque schemes, those arrested are not allowed to know the details of their arrest or know any of the evidence against them.
• Those arrested must stand before an “investigative hearing”.
• A judge can jail those arrested for up to year if they don’t enter into recognizance, which is a fancy term for a conditional release — you have to appear regularly before a court, may have to wear a tracking device, etc.
• Such arrests can occur without any charges being laid. In other words, they don’t really even need a good reason, just that something didn’t seem right about the person.
• Any evidence that is used against the arrested person (which, of course, they are not allowed to know anything about), can be obtained from foreign sources or through torture.
• These changes would become part of the Criminal Code of Canada — everyone would be subject to them.

It’s interesting to see how the October 23rd vote on this bill went down: unanimously voted in by both Conservatives and Liberals. I’m sure I’ve stated my belief more than once that they’re now essentially one and the same apparatus (McGuinty’s latest escapades also illustrate this quite well). Literally anyone outside of these two parties voted against it.

It’s also worthwhile to read the discussion at the second reading of the bill, even just to get a sense of the basically blasé, done-deal rhetoric that proponents could muster (when they could be bothered to speak on such trivial matters at all) — oh, and don’t forget 9/11!

To me it seems self-evident that anyone and everyone should be at least slightly concerned about such laws and, moreover, the types of government that would be continuously bringing them forward. The only way to avoid concern is to be completely oblivious to everything when presented with it, to deny reality when it’s staring you in the face, and to sing the praises of our glorious leader even as he’s setting up mega-prisons and the means to fill them with anyone who doesn’t toe the line.

But I guess I’m just brainwashed.

 I received a chain email yesterday:

The day that Albert Einstein

feared may have finally arrived.

Having coffee with friends.

A day at the beach.

Cheering on your team.

Having dinner out with your friends.

Out on an intimate date.

Having a conversation with your BFF

A visit to the museum

Enjoying the sights

You may have seen this already. Apparently it’s been making the rounds on a number of websites in various versions.

Whether or not you’ve seen it, though, it’s obvious that what this is is a not-so-subtle, inter-generational jab at the youth of today. And, at first blush, it has the appearance of being backed by one of the world’s foremost thinkers.

But once you dig a little deeper you quickly realize that this take on the “idiots” of today’s generation is really more of a reflection on those who perpetuate it.

Take the most obvious point, for example — the Einstein quote. It’s a fake. This is demonstrated on site after site; and really the thing that Einstein feared about technology is how dangerous it has become (in the form of things like the hydrogen bomb, for example). In fact, use of the word “idiot” by Einstein seems highly unlikely. Additionally, the quote in it’s current incarnation doesn’t seem to exist anywhere prior to 2012 (and I remember a reference to something similar dated to around 2000).

In any event, it ain’t Einstein. And you know how people could verify that? Technology, for starters!

But lets assume that the quote is correct, regardless of who said it.

A “generation of idiots”?

The pictures show kids on mobile phones — disconnected from the world around them, maybe, but what about this makes them “idiots”? Well, if a two-way interaction with a screen makes them “idiots”, what does it make the generation that precedes them?

Learning

Spending quality time

 Partay!

Yeah, that knife can cut both ways, and the older edge goes just a little deeper. Besides, the progenitors of these “idiots” are the ones responsible for making them that way (either that, or they’re a bunch of irresponsible goofs).

I also couldn’t notice the use of the acronym BFF in one of the images — something that came about as a result of the need for brevity in text-based conversations on small screens. Kind of ironic. Almost as ironic (maybe intentionally — if only it had been communicated with finesse), as one of the replies that to the thread that was broadcast back out to the email herd:

“Sad isn’t it
Sent from my “contract free” BlackBerry® smartphone on the WIND network.”

I rest my case.