Catholic advocates old SA-style apartheid

Catholic advocates old SA-style apartheid

Well-known Japanese author and Catholic activist, Ayako Sono, 82, caused outrage this week when she suggested her country should implement the sort of racial segregation once practiced in South Africa.

In a column published in the conservative Sankei Shimbun daily, Sono – a lifelong Catholic who heads a charity that supports Japanese nuns caring for the poor in Africa and Asia  – said it was better for people of different races to live separately. She wrote:

Since I learned the situation in South Africa 20 to 30 years ago, I’ve come to believe residential areas should be separated, so whites, Asians and blacks will live among themselves.

Sono was discussing the need to bring in immigrants to ease the shortage of workers to care for Japan’s ballooning elderly population.

This report said she then offered an anecdote about an apartment building in Johannesburg, saying that an influx of black residents after the end of apartheid caused white residents to flee.

Black people basically have a philosophy of large families. Therefore, they would bring their families into the apartment they bought. For whites and Asians, it was common sense for a couple and two children to live in one complex. But blacks ended up having 20 to 30 family members living there.

Sono went on to say that with so many people in such a small space, the water quickly ran out and the white people were forced to leave.

People can work, research, and socialize together. But only in terms of residence should they be separated.

Tweets and blog posts slamming Sono have flooded social media. Some attacked Sankei for running the column. Africa Japan Forum, a nonprofit group promoting knowledge of Africa, issued a statement asking Sono and Sankei to withdraw the article and apologise to the people of South Africa.

Naoko Tsuyama, the group’s representative, wrote in a letter.

This kind of thinking is shameful for a member of the world community.

Sono told The Wall Street Journal on yesterday that she wouldn’t discuss the column.

If there is an error in the article, I would correct it. I am a human and I make errors. But that piece doesn’t have any errors.

Sono, long an advocate for various conservative causes, has extensive connections to Japanese and international conservative and right-wing politicians.

In 2000, she welcomed into her home ex-Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori, who fled the country during a corruption scandal. Fujimori was later impeached, and in 2009 was convicted of human rights violations and sentenced to 25 years in prison.

More recently, Sono got into trouble over an August 2013 weekly magazine article in which she lambasted women who insisted on keeping their jobs after childbirth and urged them to stay home and raise their children instead of dropping them off at day care centres.

In apartheid South Africa, Japanese people were classed as non-whites, and excluded from whites-only areas and facilities such as swimming pools … until a trade pact was formed between South Africa and Japan in the early 1960s.

When Tokyo’s Yawata Iron & Steel Co offered to purchase 5,000,000 tons of South African pig iron, worth more than $250,000,000, over a ten-year period, the architect of apartheid, Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd, decided that Japanese should be designated “honorary whites“.

Verwoerd, who was assassinated in 1966, believed that it would be tactless and disadvantageous to the trade arrangements to subject the Japanese people to the same restrictions as other ethnicities, since trade delegations from Japan would now regularly visit South Africa for business.

Pretoria’s Group Areas Board then publicly announced that henceforth all Japanese people would be considered white, at least for purposes of residence.

Johannesburg’s city officials even decided that “in view of the trade agreements” the municipal swimming pools would be open to all Japanese guests.

The designation gave Japanese almost all of the same rights and privileges as whites (except for the right to vote, as well as being exempt from conscription).

19 responses to “Catholic advocates old SA-style apartheid”

  1. Robster says:

    Love to know what the daggy old thing thinks of poofs, dykes, single people and non-believers. This woman is probably 60% of Japan’s catholics, they’ve managed to avoid the nonsense mostly successfully.

  2. AgentCormac says:

    I assume the nuns she supports in Africa and Asia are told to keep well away from the people they are there to help.

  3. barriejohn says:

    Her views would sit well with many of the evangelical Christians with whom I used to associate, who still teach that black people are destined to be “servant of servants” to other races, despite the fact that the “curse” was upon Canaan and not his father Ham, and that the Canaanites were not black!

  4. Newspaniard says:

    But then again, the Japanese do have a good policy vis-a-vis our muslim friends. “No immigration allowed, thank you”

  5. Carlin Hicks says:

    This almost doesn’t qualify as news, such statements from Catholics just don’t surprise me any more. I’m going to go slightly off piste,so apologies for that, but the interesting aspect of the article is that of Japan and its looming crisis regarding a large ageing population and insufficient numbers to care for them. The only apparent solution is for Japan to ‘import’ caregivers by way of much higher immigration than is currently permitted. Japan is notable for its stubborn resistance to immigration and multiculturalism relative to other wealthy developed nations,so not only will they have to deal with an influx of foreigners, but also an influx likely to include quite a high proportion of Muslims given their proximity to such populous Muslim countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia. Personally I’m going to be very interested to see how Japan changes over the next decade or so.

  6. barriejohn says:

    Carlin Hicks: That’s a very good point, and Europe has an identical problem. A lot of those providing nursing and similar care in the UK now are Muslims, and without them we would be in big trouble. Anyone saying “Send them all back where they came from” is ignoring this fact, and I’d like to know what their solution would be.

  7. John the Drunkard says:

    In those years in South Africa. The residents had to live with the ‘fact’ that Chinese were ‘coloured,’ while Japanese were ‘white.’

    As for Sono’s Catholicism? She’s a right wing Japanese racist. Lots of company there, with lots of ecumenical unity. Japanese racism and supremacism are old news.

  8. EJ says:

    Simply saying they’ve got all these jobs and so should be allowed to remain to cause harm sounds, well, rather off, if you don’t mind me saying so.
    If you do mind it, simply pretend I never said it. ha ha.

    Those people holding the Muslim ideology are a special case because they do not have an ideological basis from which to integrate into societies that are not Muslim, but they do have an ideological basis for infiltrating, undermining, sabotaging other non-Muslim cultures in their quest to dominate the world and introduce, they hope, a world-wide caliphate (Muslim popery, sort of).

    So the solution, then, would be to firmly but politely remove all Muslims and exile them to the Middle East, where they can enjoy their ideology surrounded by other Muslims.
    Many of them complain that non-Muslims do not treat them as they demand to be treated.
    There is no middle ideological ground from which to form sustainable workable relationships with non-Muslims, so it seems clear enough to me.

    This would send them into a tizzy, for it would be a death-blow to their scheming for world dominance were all non-Muslims united in such a course of action.

    And, besides, if they have all these jobs, so what? Aren’t there other people in the world to take up these same jobs?
    These are not jobs that only Muslims can do, so your worries on that score are definitely misplaced, I would say.

    This is not an unworkable idea.
    These are just people whose ideology demands supremacy in such a way that the usual compromises do not work with them.

    They do not integrate like those of other religions.
    They refuse because they think their ideological shite doesn’t stink.
    They need to be shown that it does, indeed, stink.

    Consider the logistics of expelling every Muslim from all non-Muslim areas/countries.
    It would be a one-time expense and limited because their numbers are not infinite. Very doable, indeed.

    It should be done with consideration for their human rights in a reasonable and common-sense manner, of course, but it should be done in a comprehensive manner, otherwise all this nonsense will continue just as it has for the past 1400 years with zero end in sight.

    This would also have to include a forceful removal of Muslim influence in non-Muslim affairs, non-Muslim businesses, non-Muslim countries, etc.

    For example, any rich Muslims would have every bit of their interference come to a full stop and any business contracts, no matter what they are, declared null and void to effect the removal of any interest and influence they might try to keep running.

    Don’t do half-measures, but do the thing right. That’s my solution.

    You did ask, you know…

  9. Newspaniard says:

    @Ej Sounds like a plan to me. Watch the lefties howl.

  10. Cali Ron says:

    If you consider something totally unrealistic a plan. Let’s just skip over the fact that the plan is logistically impossible (finding them, moving them, finding someone to take them, property rights, etc.) and talk legalities. Your going to throw out every muslim from ever non middle east country. Never mind laws (like the US constitution), or for that matter laws of common decency. You have completely forgotten that their are more muslims in non middle east countries than are there (see Indonesia, for example) . A small percentage of muslims cause problems so throw them all out sounds just like another holocaust in the making. For those muslims born in non muslim countries (like the US or England) where do you send them? I could go on, but I think everyone gets it.

    I hope your diatribe made you feel better because it’s just whistling in the wind. An exercise in futility!

  11. Cali Ron says:

    OH, I forgot. For Newspaniard: HHHHooowwwllll!

  12. EJ says:

    @Cali Ron
    I do appreciate your points, for they are indeed relevant.

    With that said, let me be clear to all who are enjoying my typing: I care about these people, all people, even you.
    I am a secular humanist of sorts, so I am trying to figure out a way for everyone to live in relative peace well into the future.

    Muslims are just people.
    No matter your ideology, you are a human being who deserves a great deal of compassion, consideration, and understanding, regardless of any personal psychological bias on the part of anyone else.

    Now, I could twit you about your knee-jerk reaction to what I proposed, but that wouldn’t be helpful, I think, at this point. No, instead I, um, ‘turn the other cheek’, as it were, and forgive you freely, for I know a great deal about how our brains work.

    To your points then:

    No, it is NOT a logistical impossibility at all. Sorry.
    I could go into detail, but the details can be worked out later by compassionate people who truly care about these human being who just happen to be wrapped in an ideology that is harmful in many ways to them and others.
    (this is not to say that they must convert or anything so unworkable as that)

    For instance, when I said ‘null and void’ as to contractual obligations, I meant that it would be stopping one sort of process in favor of a reasonable and safe one for all parties.
    That is, monetary damages, remunerations, reparations, and all that sort of thing is just paperwork in the end and that anyone harmed unduly during such an endeavour should be reasonably compensated and protected as much as possible during this, um, exodus I am suggesting.

    Sure, lots of money floating around. Money issues often blind people to the essentials and the realities of a situation, but they are not insurmountable by any means, as any competent, ethical macroeconomics student could tell you.

    This is in no way revenge motivated, for these are just people, innocently holding an ideology that they had no power to resist or think about. You cannot hold it against them, really, so if you do hold it against them, you are making a terrible, terrible mistake.
    Don’t hate the people. It is not their fault.

    To be truly compassionate about these poor sods, you’ve got to realize some things that are true but rarely thought upon, such as the fact that brainwashing victims are victims and not responsible for what they do nearly as much as you might think.

    It is not that they cause problems or that a few might cross the line and harm others, it is the ideology they share that is the real issue here, not any individual interpretations of it.

    Oh, wait. Shall I mention the status quo?
    You know, that situational thing that has the world in a deadly grip of malicious psychosis? Hm.

    The status quo is really the only bar to such a plan, for you will never get some people to agree to something sensible that nevertheless threatens the status quo, of which they are a part, if that’s where they are sitting.

    No, I am not suggesting anything like a Shoah / Holocaust in any way, shape, form, or manner.
    Let me be very clear on that, for you do not appear to understand how insulting it is for you to suggest that is what I am doing here.
    I am not a racist, for those of you who conflate Muslims with dark skin over there in the UK. I have run into this before talking with Brits, so I say it again here.
    I am not bigoted against people of any ethnic group, for they are just people, not stereotypes, and I do my best to avoid following the way other people think about such things.

    Do I hate people because they enjoy mashed chickpeas?
    No. Neither do I hate them for anything else that is beyond their control.
    But I must stay within context when speaking to others, for in this universe, there is no intrinsic values to our socio-psychological makeup as we are just primates evolved from other primates and so there is no magic to help you with your ignorance of such things and I’m not going to give a seminar about it here.

    Cali Ron, I live in WA State. Should I regard you as some stereotype of a Californian because you call yourself ‘Cali Ron”? No. I don’t do that sort of thing either, sorry.

    This is only a rough outline, not a comprehensive plan, but I would be more than glad to help with my take on things in formulating such a plan or any reasonable alternative, but most people don’t give a fuck what I think or feel, so I try not to expect too much from other human beings.

    There. How’s that for a response? I did it entirely off the cuff in just a few minutes. Chew on it a bit before you reply, if you want to, for I am always glad to see people put thought and consideration into what they write.
    Or not.
    Whatever floats your boat, man.

  13. Carlin Hicks says:

    While Ron may have gone a tad far in comparing your ideas to the Holocaust, they bear some striking similarities to the policies of early Nazi Germany insofar as they relate to the stripping of legal rights from a section of the population and considering their enforced deportation to elsewhere; Madagascar in the case of the Jews. In any case, to do so would be to admit that we were unable to curb those elements of their behaviour that are incongruent with our mainstream values. Consider instead the opportunity we have to drag Islam into the light of reason in our own countries, to accelerate the religion’s reform by its own adherents and thereby weaken the perceived legitimacy of the sporadic acts of terror carried out in Western society.

    On a more practical basis, whilst it would not be impossible to carry out your proposed plan, it would be immensely difficult given the legal and political constraints within which our western states operate, not to mention the long term problem we would be creating by giving worldwide Islam a lasting and potent source of embedded hatred of our society and culture. Far easier is to instead expend those resources, political and moral capital in letting our tolerance of their beliefs and actions abate, and denying them the ability to shy away from full participation in our societies, which of course means imposing upon them liberal and secular education, eroding over the course of several generations their blind adherence to their dogmatic faith.

  14. EJ says:

    @Carlin Hicks
    Ah. Thank you for your reply.

    Despite my efforts to underscore the friendliness and compassion that absolutely must be a bedrock principle in such a plan, here you are saying they will all hate us for refusing to allow them to cause harm in this way. Hm.

    No, I envision a truly friendly and helpful exodus, that is done in such a way that no harm is done to them beyond assisting them with finding more suitable surroundings where they will be surrounded by other Muslims who can then care for them according to their ideology.
    No fair tossing Shiites to Sunnis or Sunnis into a pack of Shiites, for example, but that every care must be taken to make sure that the only claim they could levy against non-Muslims is that we have been very firm, polite, considerate, and very willing to help redress every real grievance even as we help them go on a sort of enforced Hajj to Mecca or wherever they’d like to go, as long as it is not to a non-Muslim country.

    As to their legal rights, those should be respected insofar as it is possible to do so, but their ideology is not a person and has no rights in and of itself.

    Stripping them of their rights is something of a misnomer, for their ideology does not recognize any such thing in the first place and so, in point of law, they, by holding this ideology, utterly reject these rights you say they should be forced to accept.
    You are arguing the wrong point there, you see.

    Islam is a theocratic ideology.
    You are making a mistake when you say they should have non-Muslim rights forced upon them in opposition to their ideology.
    If you truly gave a shite about their rights to keep holding their delusional theocratic ideology, as enumerated in various constitutions, human rights declarations, etc., then you would see that this plan would actually help them to become more coherent, more healthy, and more happy in the end…
    ..for you must consider it from their point of view and not from the usual sort of view. You must be both objective and sympathetic to their plight if you are to do any of this in an ethical manner in such a way that they would, once it had been properly explained to them, not feel much hatred at all for those who firmly but compassionately pushed them gently out to a healthier community, a community that shares their ideology.

    Look, I understand this is unlikely to happen, but farther down the road the same problem will become bigger, nastier, and more difficult of peaceful resolution, and so I thought that if we did something like this long before things come to a head – as they are being manipulated to do now – there would be more of a chance that those people, who we get along with now, who are Muslim, who are better educated and have seen what tolerance and compassion can do to help everyone, could go along with them to help bring about such transitions in general thinking that you appear to agree is a good thing to work towards.
    They would be doing this on their own, as Muslims in a Muslim community, using whatever laws they could help get put into place, so that they would actually have a greater likelihood of reaching a sort of “Enlightenment” moment within their theocratic cultures due to having everyone on the same page working together as Muslims together.
    Now I know there are various sub-sects of Islam, some of them rather sad in how it shows the damage done to them as children, but due to the theocratic nature of their ideology, those sorts of things are just bumps in the road for them…if they can manage to pull past this hatred of all that is non-Islamic.

    I want them to have a better chance of getting past all that nonsense, to have the sorts of resources that will draw them gradually out of the mental Dark Ages they currently suffer from. (and us too. This killing needs to stop)

    Yes, education is important, but it must be secular and so they will reject it. You must understand their religious delusion and what it is like to be in the throes of such deep-seated, systemic mental illness, surrounded by it culturally, sociologically, etc.

    They want theocracy. It is a deep-seated need for them.
    So let’s give them a hand, a friendly, helpful, generous hand, but one that pulls them towards their own religion, to let them figure it all out together by themselves in their own countries where no non-Muslims are ever tolerated.
    Oh, forgot about that bit, eh? ha ha
    What religious adherent would refuse an all-expenses paid pilgrimage to a place they feel is super-duper holy?
    Why is this a crime? It’s not. But you are trying to make it seem like one.

    As a US Citizen, I have few rights allowed me any more, for the oligarchs are stripping everyone they can of any rights as they seek to turn the whole world into a giant pile of crap with them at the top, so you might see how your arguments in this direction fall a little flat.

    There is no magic. There is nothing intrinsic. All morals are relative. These are scientific truths, not just me flapping my gums to entertain you.
    When Zionists or Evangelical whatsits proclaim that Jews have some sort of intrinsic ownership of a tiny plot of land, they are full of shite.
    Ownership is not a physical property but a sociological construct made out of pure shite.
    There is no intrinsic properties in physics that can be used to support these insupportable ideals, yet they persist because of the delusions, or ignorance, or whatnot of the person claiming that things are ‘just so’.

    So, when you argue a point, and I find it unsupportable scientifically, I will try to point this out, but I didn’t want to write a damn book on it, either, so I hope you can work with me on this and find where my intentions are as honorable as I can make them, within the context of our socio-cultural matrix, not necessarily shared in all respects, but at least I’m giving it a go.

  15. Cali Ron says:

    Perhaps you should write a book, you’ve got a start right here! I won’t bother to address your many meanderings, but will focus on a few specific points.

    First, I didn’t say your plan was the holocaust, but it looked like how it began. In spite of the length of your replies you never addressed the central points I made.

    Freedom! A defining principal for America and many other western countries. You are taking away the freedom of people because of their religion. Which brings up an important part of freedom-freedom of religion. You’ll have to change the constitution on that one.

    You are suggesting throwing natural born citizens of this country out and sending them to a third world country because of their religion. You’ll have to amend the constitution for that, too! You can’t tell someone born and raised in the US they have to go live in the middle east because you don’t like their religion. That’s a fact! You could maybe deport immigrants, but some of them are here because they would be killed in their home country and are here for asylum. So sending them back would be a death sentence.

    And how do you intend to have “a truly friendly and helpful exodus” when it is forced against their will. Perhaps you’ve heard of the Japanese internment? This would be even more inhumane.

    You have also lumped every muslim together. There are over 2.8 billion muslims in the world. Over 8 million in America alone. And 56 million in Europe. You really think you can convince over 60 million muslims to just up and leave, move to the middle east (with it’s poverty and wars) because you say it would be good for them.

    All the crap you wrote about theocracy, whether your intentions are honorable or not does not matter. My point is valid-logistically, socially and politically it can’t be done. You are being unrealistic.

  16. EJ says:

    Okay, let me add a few things that I see I skipped over earlier.

    The difficulties in getting people to seriously consider anything close to what I am proposing are considerable, for the knee-jerk reactions are quite deeply embedded in many people who would otherwise be more open-minded about things.

    Also, I am not absolutely enamored of this rough outline of mine, as it requires quite a few other changes to have been made to the status quo before it is even likely to be heard or considered anyway, as I tried to mention somewhere.

    No, it’s doable, but you’ve got to get rid of those elements who are certain to do their damndest to sabotage any such plan should anyone try to implement any of it, or it will just be the usual cockup.

    Status quo needs to go first, or this is just a waste of time, and a severe and universal crackdown on unethical behaviour needs to be implemented ASAP, for it is the root of most ‘evil’ in the world.
    Good ethics is more important than violence being done by some fundamentalists here and there. I’d really rather see unethical people be held accountable for betraying the trust others had in them, than bother with harmful ideologies, yet sometimes one leads to the other.

    I am the victim of numerous hate crimes. I know what it is like. The betrayal of trust is the real crime we should be doing something about, not some poor delusional victim of brainwashing and what they did with a weapon.

    And that poor fellow they killed in the street. Who? Where?
    Open murder is common and always has been.
    It happens in most countries. “I can’t breathe”

  17. EJ says:

    First, just let me say that I wrote that last bit and posted it before Cali Ron’s post ever appeared. Interesting bit of flummery there, O webmaster.

    @Cali Ron
    I can’t breathe.

    I thought about leaving my response at that, but I’m fairly sure you wouldn’t quite “get” what I am meaning by it.

    As to the Constitution, do you respect it?
    Do you realize that it is officially the Supreme Law of the United States of America and not some batshit ideology held by delusional people?

    Have you ever read the First Amendment?
    I ask that because you sound sort of like other people who haven’t read it but “know” what it says because they’ve had bullshit propaganda blaring in their faces their whole lives.

    Here’s the text straight from

    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Now let us return to the rest of the Constitution, where it says it is the Supreme Law of the Land.
    Okay, I’m going to skip over some rambling and point out that your so-called “freedom of religion” can more accurately and scientifically be stated as “the freedom to be brainwashed and / or schizophrenic”

    What is religion? Duh. Everyone here knows what religion really is, it’s all bullshit. So shall we then say that this is the “freedom to lie, spread bullshit no matter how harmful, to commit any crime” and somehow ignore the supremacy of all other Constitutional rights in favor of some child molester in a dress?

    Look, religion DOES NOT give anyone the “right” to act as if they are above the law, to attack other people, to do their damndest to drive children insane, to harm ANY CHILD.

    Yet that is what you would argue in the end, should you misunderstand the logic and history of the Constitution.

    Religion has ZERO rights.
    Why? Because it is not a human being.

    Religion has no credibility, has no rights, has no basis in fact and, were it to be properly put on trial, as it were, it would always LOSE, because religion is not real, is not a real thing, is only bullshit, and can be shown to be without a single fucking iota of worth and should never be given any respect.

    Yes, the First Amendment is glitchy, which was done on purpose when it was written with just this sort of thing in mind.

    But the rest of the Constitution, which spells out quite a lot more of how our rights and silly privileges are supposed to work, shows that religion is not actually protected to the extent most people believe.
    They’ve been given the BS and never had time to think about it.
    You cannot give an ideology, especially one that is delusional and based on nothing but lies and fraud, any kind of legal support, can you? Or is that what you are trying so hard to say?

    You bring up many good points, and I would have gone into more detail to forestall them, as I knew they would come up. See, I knew all those points already and have not said that such a plan would be totalitarian or inhumane, did I? Nope.

    No, if someone is here seeking asylum, they need to be safe and protected from what they fear, but that doesn’t mean they should have to live amongst non-believers simply to get that level of safety, does it? No.

    I know every individual case is an individual case, thanks.

    And I am not enjoying the necessity of going after one ideology and saying nothing about the others, but my friend barriejohn asked for ideas specific to the Muslim ideology, not about religion in general, as that would have been quite a different sort of plan, yes?

    Shall we all wait for Jesus to appear before the bullshit is stopped? Um, no.

    See, the problem is one of mental illness, not ideology, so the First Amendment is actually, in truth, saying that mentally ill people get to do whatever they want especially if they are in the majority, or have enough influence that they can pretend they are above “manmade laws”.

    Let’s ask you a question:
    What is your solution to the extremely harmful and dangerous problem of people holding delusional ideologies that make them otherwise impossible to reason with, since they abjure all reason in favor of emotional and schizophrenic blindness?
    Go ahead and give it a shot. I know yer a clever lad.

  18. Cali Ron says:

    You don’t know me at all! And I’m tired of your condescending attitude. It doesn’t make it OK to be condescending just because you are “polite” when you do it.

    “I thought about leaving my response at that, but I’m fairly sure you wouldn’t quite “get” what I am meaning by it.”

    “I ask that because you sound sort of like other people who haven’t read it but “know” what it says because they’ve had bullshit propaganda blaring in their faces their whole lives.”

    My arguments were well thought out, valid and reasonable. You can dispute my point of view without insulting my intelligence. You still haven’t actually made a decent counter argument. It’s been amusing, but I’m done with you.

  19. EJ says:

    @Cali Ron
    Did I forget to apologize again? Sorry.
    Your arguments were okay, but your premises were not.
    Without a valid premise, you can argue like mad but all I see is a lack of proper grounding in a wide range of subjects, so I tweak your nose *honk* and kick you in the shins.
    It’s how I roll, dude.

    Yes, I do not know you very well. Quite true. But I do know you cannot see past a little snark to what I am really saying, as you explained just now with considerable verve.
    Well done…on the verve stuff, anyway.

    Bad information leads to bad conclusions, bad results.
    If I see something in your words that causes me to feel that perhaps you are lacking some key information, I will try to help you in my arrogant, rude way that is really just some small pokes at you to see if your responses indicate any possibility of further progress in our interactive snark sessions.
    What! Don’t you like being snarky? Then why do you do it almost every fucking time you post? Hmm.

    Look, I am not being condescending so much as being conspiratorial, so perhaps you are reading too much into the way I am speaking and not really thinking about the things I am alluding to, despite my long-winded efforts. Okay. Fine.

    Here, I’ll try to be as pithy as I can:
    My plan would work if the status quo was gone and ethical people were in charge.

    Here’s where I usually get snarky again, but I’ll refrain because you do not seem up to handling that aspect of my personal psych profile. Sorry again, k?

    What I’d really like to see is someone answer my last question above. Isn’t it what this whole fucking website is about or not?

    How about it, people? Any takers?

    Ron, could you ever find it in your brain to just ignore my snotty attitude and just try to deal with me the way I am?
    This is a troll talking here. I used to want to live under a bridge when I was younger….no, really….but I’d never feel safe there, so I had to give it up as a bad idea… )