Oh, yes- Happy MEW Year

Nothing Need More Be Said

Saddam Hussein is dead.

The deposed tyrant was tried carefully and fairly- something he denied his many victims- judged, condemned to death and, finally, hanged.

If this drivel was to be believed and its logic followed, people like Hitler and Stalin would be mourned.

I don't know what has to be said or done to make people believe that not are there tyrants but when they are actually punished it is a right and just cause.

I really can't think of a way.

Christmas in Kabul

This is not a sign of great change in a war-torn country but it is certainly heart-warming.

Merry Christmas

To all, everywhere, no matter who you are- Merry Christmas.

A Rough Creature Slouches Toward Bethlehem

No. Really.
The birthplace of Christ has been overrun by terrorists and thugs.
But not for long, hopefully.

Yet Another Publicity Stunt

An elderly gay couple is denied Communion.
So?
Surely, they should know that if they engage in mortal sin then they cannot receive Communion. Any Catechism student could tell you that.
Furthermore, if anyone wishes to buck a system - any system- then don't expect the said system to come through for them.
This is a ploy to make two people one would think knew better as helpless victims of a heartless establishment.
Whatever.
I'm not buying, even if some bleeding heart might.

THIS is the Religion of Peace

Iran opens its first conference to determine whether the Holocaust in an historical reality.

Let us be clear on one thing- this is certainly not an objective academic inquiry into an historical reality. It's just good, old-fashioned Jew-hating.

And there are people who think we should do nothing about them developing nuclear weapons.

Ho, Ho, Ho

Now, you know how I feel about Christmas, particularly contrary views concerning one of the best days of the year, so it is only natural that I become inflamed over this (thank you, LGF). Operation Christmas Child, a project spearheaded by a sectarian organisation called the Samaritan's Purse, has decided against any Christian flair regarding their presents to Muslim countries, meaning that there would be no items that are blatantly Christian and, in this case, Christmas-like in their appearance. Some people may think this is a correct swing in the multi-cultural direction but I think it is a big mistake.

In countries that profess cultural pluralism, there should be no reason why anyone objects to any holiday. People are different and will do things differently from someone else. Deal with it.

As a Christian organisation, Samaritan's Purse should not lose sight of its mission, nor should it abandon Christian values or sentiments for the sake of a few obviously picky beggars (funny how today's reading in Mass was the widow's mite).

Leading up to my next point, beggars CAN'T be chooses. Ever. If one has nothing then it should not matter who gives one anything. I doubt North Koreans resent the aid that the Japanese give them (though, not so much now, due to the nuclear crisis).

It seems the vastly cash-strapped Muslims can't (or won't) look after their own, leaving the burden to other less Muslim (Christian/Jewish/Buddhist) countries, individuals and organisations to look after their downtrodden despite the scorn, the danger and who can forget the words of the prophet: Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying.

Well, if that's the case, how about I give nothing? At least someone would have a reason not to like me (aside from the fact that I'm an educated Christian female who makes her own living independant from a male). Yes, the situation is difficult because children are involved but their lot in life has long since been decided by the whims of wicked men no one in any position of power will do anything about.

Santa is coming to town, but not Jakarta.

We Shall Not Sleep

Why We Fight

This is why we fight.
Not this.

Hella-Photos

They're hella-cool.

The Final Countdown

It is said that Kim Jong-Il regrets the recent nuclear test. Doubtful. It will resume, with the help of its backers, China and Russia, in a few months. North Korea has never shown good faith in anything, even to its own people, and as long as China and Russia continue to back them and the rest of the world (especially South Korea) continues to wobble on a tougher stance, there is no hope in resolving this peacefully.

Head for Busan, everybody.

Bad Impressions

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak thinks that Muslims are partly to blame for their poor image. Only partly?

The Fuss Over Veils

Is nothing anyone can say that will not offend the Muslims? I guess not.

The recent row over Jack Straw's comments over Muslim women's veils proves time and again how Muslims over-react, how Western society will blindly gloss over this and nod their lazy approval and how the press is more than willing to bend over. Please read here.

Veils DO restrict women. It deliberately separates women from the rest of the community, all the while marking them as a visible minority in countries where Islamic practices are not the norm. A backward and warsome prophet (the word "prophet" is used in the weakest sense imaginable) demanded women that women wear veils. His opinion of women was already low and this trait has sinced been cultivated over the centuries. Men, apparently, cannot use their free will to not act on urges or even have the common decency to not have the urges in the first place and see women as people. Therefore, women must cover up in these wholly uncomfortable and impractical garments.

The teacher in question really shouldn't have a leg to stand on. If her students cannot understand her, then her effectiveness as an educator is diminished. Also, she lives in a country where not only does she NOT have to wear a veil but she can change jobs that would suit her- rather, Islam's- wishes. The fact that she invoked the children is a just lowpoint in her argument. The children couldn't understand her, anyway, and I think parents (and pretty much everyone) are fed up with catering to a minority which has no desire to assimilate or co-operate with the majority.

There are, of course, the special interest groups that decry this criticism as "demonising". Yeah. I'm sure by now that Islam and the Muslim community have done that on their own without the help (read: constructive criticism) of everyone else around them.

If people truly value education then why hire those who point-blank refuse to do their jobs effectively? Will political correctness win out over common sense? Probably at this point.

All Good Dogs Go to Heaven (Muslim Cabbies Don't)

The September 11th attacks did not take the cake. The Danish cartoon crisis did not take the cake. The threat on the current Pope's life barely fluttered an eyelid. Will this be the last straw?

It's bad enough to hate a dog but to refuse a blind person because of one? What the hell kind of religion not only hates dogs but forbids compassion to the blind? The taxi drivers who refuse to help the disabled should be fired, preferrably out of a cannon. There is no health or safety concern here. It is all ideological, and there should no DAMN way the West should put up with it.

O God, Canada...... (groan)

The evacuation of Lebanese-"Canadians" has cost the taxpayers $85 million. Some have suggested expiring or removing the citizenship of said freeloaders but if Canada was plan B for them when Hezbollah was making life miserable for everyone (again!) I don't think that will really bother them (that is until another crisis). No, a more direct and fair approach is needed- bill them. It's only fair to do so. The Japanese have done it. PM Harper can be all Fat Tony on them: I'm afraid I must insist. The taxpayers have been most vocal on the subject of the evacuation money. 'Where is the money? Why aren' you getting the money? Why aren't you getting the money now?', and so on. So, if you please, da money."

That's how it's done.

Just Insufferable

This is why you can't have a "dialogue" with these people. Not that it is morally or intellectually repugnant to do so but impossible.
Just read the words of Saudi cleric, Salman al-Oda:

Nobody says you should face your enemy in the battle with roses or aromatic plants, or that you should give him your head on a platter. Even Christianity, which says that if you are struck on the right cheek, you should turn your left cheek, and if you are asked to give your coat, you should give your shirt as well, also includes the words of Jesus: “I came not to bring peace, but a sword.” As we see, the Christians today are the ones who attack the world of Islam. It is not the world of Islam that is aggressive. Who colonized whom? Who invaded Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and every piece of the world of Islam? The Islamic world is subject to the aggression, the strikes, and the colonialism of the Western powers. Today, we see that the extremist, terrorist American and British administrations are attacking the Islamic world, supporting all the forces of violence and extremism, and abandoning the scales of justice.

Now you listen to me, you piece of crap, the founder of Christianity did not murder others, burn libraries, wage wars or deflower children. If you had the brains to read the entirety of the Pope's address and understand the message of a true religion of peace (the one founded by, as you may remember, "a monkey on the cross" ), then you would know that violence defies reason and is not conjunctive to the human soul, that Pope Benedict XVI was QUOTING a man under seige from lovely representatives of your backward religion and has been studying Islam extensively and that everything the Pope said was proven over and over and over again. Remember, too, that the West did not SHOOT A NUN IN THE BACK (a true martyr and a servant of God who looked after YOUR poor and suffering). There are no American, British or Zionist conspiracies. No one is trying to get you, least of all Christians (you know- whose churches you burn and from whom you demand jeziya- protection money- the pure gratitude of not being beaten up your thugs). You must think the rest of the world is stupid but you. YOU cause your own problems with your violence and ignorance.

I would like to take up Emperor Manuel II Paleogus' question: show me what good Islam has done for society. Where are the hospitals and schools (not the madrassas that recruit future suicide-bombers)? Where are the bodies of art, literature and philosophy? How many wells were dug? How many children immunised? What have you done to make everyone think that yours truly is a religion of peace and not a band of thugs who maim and butcher?

Let the world know when you think of an answer.

Mea Culpa: An Apology

If the Pope won't apologise, then I will.

I'm sorry that the comments you've neither read nor understood offended you. It was wrong for Benedict XVI to quote from an emperor who was under seige from the Ottomans and it was especially wrong for the Pope to even remotely suggest that violence is inconjunctive to the human soul. This is in no way meant to suggest that Islam's roots were mired in violence or that contemporary Muslims resort to irrational violence and/or threats at the slightest criticism or comment. No. In fact, nothing anyone does or says is even remotely radical or violent. It's not an overreaction to refer to Jesus Christ as a "monkey on the cross" (say- isn't He a prophet? Hhmmm?), threaten to assassinate the current Pope as one tried to assassinate the last one, burn churches, effigies or even kill a nun. No, these are reasonable responses for cool-headed, peaceful representatives of a religion that invented everything good under the sun.

And I'm sorry your civilisation didn't work and is propped up by obscenely priced barrels of oil which ultimately pollute the planet. It must be the Jews' fault. It usually is. Who kills Iraqis right now? It's them. Them or the Danes. I forget which.

Anyway, I do hope you accept this apology. If there is anyone who deserves it more, it's you.

Stoking a Fire

The new Holy Father cannot win. At least not the battle of reason. It takes two to reason- one to give an argument or solution and the other to hear it. The Holy Father got the first part right. The Islamic world and the press simply do not have the other.

Here is part of his address (you can read the rest here):

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation (controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably...

The bone of contention is this: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".

It does not matter to the Islamic world that Benedict XVI was quoting a conversation between the emperor Manuel Paleogus and "an educated Persian". It does not matter that violence defies reason, the essence of the Holy Father's address. It does not matter that Mohommed did, in fact, carry out his conversions with violence. What does matter is that Islam will not be countenanced or this will happen. It matters to the cowards who still do not understand that Islam is not a peaceful religion and has yet to prove that it is.

Here are some comments left on a BBC message board (not edited but names witheld):

"Pope should not be this much ignorant about islam.Don't ever insult other religions. That should be the underlining principle living in a multi-religious world." (I'll remember you said that.)

"Pope has irreversably lost his respect among the Muslims. His remarks DOES NOT however mean that the respect for Christianity (e.g., in Jesus Christ) has in any way receded in the Muslim world." (They planned to kill the previous Pope. They have no respect for him, Christianity and Christians, nor do they have any love for the proper use of grammar.)

"How dare people say the Pope was wrong. He's infallible so couldn't possibly make a mistake." (That's right. He is infallible. You, on the other hand, are very fallible.)

"Pope hasn't said this intentionally.However, He should have considered that outrage aroused due to insulting Islam by false info in quotation'll worsen Islam image at west.He should have considered that these words'll deepen hatred towards west in Islamic world & will support extremists calling Muslims to fight against illusory crusade.He should have considered that traces of cartoons crisis didn't yet fade away.He should have considered that we're trying to build bridges without more rifts." (What is there to consider? That anything and everything angers people with a short fuse? And there is nothing false about what he said.)

"YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CALL THIS AN OVERREACTION!! " (Keep an eye on this one)

"The Pope should have watch the movie "Kingdom of Heaven", there are bits of history which were based on facts." (Uh- no there aren't. Why are you getting history lessons from Orlando Bloom?)

"It is unfortunate that the leaders in whom we entrust our faith seem to find ways to divide us instead of bringing us together. They should know better. The Pope got it wrong this time, and I am a catholic. If you see the truth please say it." (Coward. How do you like THAT truth?)

Mind, not everything said displayed cowardice, ill will or idiocy but enough comments were made to make one think that people still don't understand that there are those who do not share the values of peace and freedom. However, they would much rather attack an easy target for such a target will never lash out.

It is wrong to compel others to join one's religion by force. It is wrong to resort to violence. Don't remind the Church of that. It already knows. Remind the other guys. I think they have trouble understanding the text.

A few reflections on what everyone was thinking

I said I wouldn't do this because nothing I could post or say would erase the enormity of the disaster (I use the word deliberately) or sway those who, for some reason, believe the events of September 11th are some how the fault of the Great Satan- the West. But I have been thinking.

The West may have risen economically (so too has the Middle East with their outrageously priced barrels of oil) but has declined spiritually and culturally. This should not suggest that it is a society worth abandoning. It is the only society we've ever known and the only one worth clinging onto because the alternatives are worse. Can you imagine a worldwide caliphate run by bin Laden? Sharia law? Morality police? Departments of Religious Genocide? That is what Islamofascists and all the audacity they possess would inflict if we lose our anger and our resolve.

Don't tell me about other religions being at fault or imagined or real crimes. No other religion I can think encourages people to kill in the Name of God (alot of hospitals, museums, soup kitchens and schools have been built, though). As for crimes, who hijacks planes? Who flies them into buildings? Who gathers dangerous materials for wanton destruction and death? Who restricts the movements of women? Who restricts the freedom of the press? Who burns embassies? Who keeps their people impoverished and without hope? Is it us?

Of course it isn't. We have nothing to apologise for or amend. Others do and it's high time we make them do so.

The Summer Wind Came Blowin' In from Across the Sea...

We all remember the episode of The Simpsons when they got the pool and Bart broke his leg and Martin's dreams of popularity ended with ripped shorts. This photo album is nothing like that. It's just some photos of Midlands and a couple of Ottawa and a barbecue.

Enjoy.

Mad Max Beyond the Freeway

Everybody else is talking about Mel Gibson, I might as well, also.

If the reports are true and he did say those disgusting things then he and he alone is to blame, not the alcohol (or Jews as certain persons allege- insert frowny face here). Make him lose his license for driving under the influence (yes, it's still a problem and yes, it's still bad) and have him work at the local Jewish centre for his community service (come on- he works in Hollywood- he'll never go to jail).

What bothers me is how he is referred by the popular press as a "devout Catholic". How does his Catholicism fit in here? And why mention it at all? Did Catholicism make him drink too much, speed down the highway and spew out nasty words? I'm Catholic. I don't do or say those things.

Let's be honest here. If religion must be mentioned at all, shouldn't it be brought up when very pertinent? Recent happenings at home and abroad are fine examples of what should and shouldn't be said. No one brings up religion when a Jewish community centre gets shot up or a town gets levelled. After all, no one wants to admit Muslims nationwide commit crimes of all kinds, promote bigotry or commit other atrocties. In fact, virtually everyone goes out of their way not to blame Muslims or Islam. After, the anti-Semitic, misogynist, incongruent, violence-inducing religion of peace can't be to blame- can it?

I suppose it is only appropriate to mention someone's race, religion or gender in certain situations where the offender is Jewish/Catholic/Asian/female/American. Thank God I live in the twenty-first century.

Shut up, Bill Graham

Bill Graham has criticised the Conservative government's- rather- Prime Minister Harper's quick support of Israel. Mr. Graham would prefer Canada act as an "intermediary" (read: milquetoast with no political clout whatsoever). Mr. Harper feels that Israel's response was appropriate due to Hezbollah's aggression and attacks. Mr. Graham forgets that Israel is constantly under attack from any Arab state and/or Islamic group one cares to mention, that Hezbollah started this and that a man mired in this really shouldn't point fingers or make any pronouncements whatsoever.

Was that low? Maybe. Deserved? Definitely.

You Must Be Joking

Courage? Not bloody likely.

The Greatest Canadian?

Forget the previous post and do try not to make ubermensch connections with this current one.

Tommy Douglas, so-called progenitor of "universal healthcare" (in actuality, the concept was devised and used in a town in Saskatchewan long before he latched on to it) and dubbed the "greatest Canadian of all time", was a fascist who supported sterilisation of the poor, Catholics and the disabled. Please read here.

I suppose none of this should be a surprise. Trudeau had fascist leanings (long before driving Canada into the ground during the Seventies and early Eighties). Emily Murphy and Nellie McClung, members of the Famous Five, were bigots who advocated racial separation and sterilisation (I guess the Canadian Mint should carefully consider who they put on our money). Marc Garneau, astronaut and former Liberal candidate, also made derogatory remarks about the disabled (what is it with Liberals and fascism?). We brush over this because no one wants to admit that the same man who helped to ruin Canada was Hitler sympathiser or that the women who made Canadian women into "persons" just plain didn't like "dark" people. After all, we're a multicultural society!

At least the Austrians revile Hitler.

The Greatest Canadian

Who is the greatest Canadian?
Many would say Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone.
Others would say Drs. Banting and Best whose discovery of insulin changed the lives of those ill with diabetes.
Perhaps the late great James Doohan who, before fixing mechanical problems on the starship, Enterprise, struck a blow against tyranny on the beaches of Normandy (indeed, such an honour goes out to all soldiers).
Or Lord Stanley, the man whose fondness of hockey created the Stanley Cup to recognise excellence in league hockey.
Paul Henderson whose last minute goal defeated the Soviet Union in the 1971 Summit Series, thus ending our "Cold War".
Tommy Prince, the most decorated Canadian soldier of the Second World War.
But the ultimate unstoppable force of the universe would have to be Superman, created by Joe Shuster of Toronto, Ontario and Jerome Seigal.
So, Superman, this day is for you.

Something Very Wrong

Oh. My. Goodness.

The columnist was wrong. Eighty-one percent is NOT a comfortable majority. The number of people who should not condone pedophilia should be much higher.

Lazy attitudes, stupidity, the complete loss of sanity and things that are right and holy. You pick the pathology. I'm just going to be sick.

The Guilt Meter

Only a few days ago, Canadian authorities thwarted a potential attack on Canadian soil. Seventeen men- twelve adults and five youths- were arrested. They had in their possession three times the ammonium nitrate used to destroy a federal building in Oklahoma City. The suspects had been monitored for months. More arrests are expected.

Many people are breathing sighs of relief that a potentially disastrous attack had been stopped in its tracks before being carried out. Experts are not surprised that such attacks could occur in Canada and encourage caution.

These are the facts as they have been reported.

What is blood-boiling, aside from the plans of murder and destruction, is the inevitable tide of white-washing that is now occurring. The suspects, Canadian citizens who are obviously of Middle Eastern and Islamic extraction, have put family and friends at a loss to explain what is going. It is understandable. No one wants to believe their brother or father is capable of mass murder. Except that the police found ammonium nitrate in their possession and have been monitored for expressiing anti-Western sentiments. A prominent- and controversial- imam, Aly Hindy, from the Salaheddin Islamic Centre near Toronto, made the claim that the authorities are now falsely accusing the suspects. He says:


"It's not terrorism. It could be some criminal activity with a few guys, that's all."

I failed to make myself heard. THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF AMMONIUM NITRATE USED TO DESTROY A FEDERAL BUILDING IN OKLAHOMA CITY. Either the imam is incredibly mistaken or is in denial.

We cannot make any more assumptions or say anything definitively untill all the facts are known and the suspects are tried in a court of law, a privelige considering many countries do not afford their accused such a "luxury". That's not what this post is about. This post is about looking at some cold and hard facts, accepting these facts and changing our perspectives about certain people and things. I expect nothing of the sort. I just wish it.

But I digress...

Consider the bomb at the Guildford pub in 1974. "We must hunt down the maniacs and animals who would do this kind of thing," demanded former Minister for Northern Ireland, David Howell. Strong words in response to atrocities committed by the IRA (long before the July 7th attacks in London). The violence of the Troubles turned opinions against Northern Irish Catholics. Where were the apologists for the attacks? Not the obvious deflections from the likes of Gerry Adams but the actual denials and justifications for the crimes of murder and destruction?

Consider the extremist Eric Rudolph, poster-boy for the oft-decried phenomenon of "Christian terrorism". No one in their right minds would defend such a man (though there were some who did defend him please note I justified the preceding statement with the qualifiers "right mind"). Nevertheless, it did not prevent the popular media from painting entire special interest groups as "extremists". Did anyone reach out an olive branch and declare that while a few may be- how shall we say? -"misguided"- others were well-informed and peaceful? Nonsense! It couldn't be!

So why is everyone on the defensive now? What makes this case incredibly different from cases that were similiar? Why was everyone ready to believe that the entirety of this group or that groups was capable of murder and incapable of compassion but not the one in question? There can't be enough white-washing and sugar-coating in the case in Canada. Muslim leaders and groups are called in. Everyone is asked to reach out to their fellow Muslims (that's hard to do if you are not Muslim). Why? No one is accusing all Muslims of anything (but the presence of leaders and groups makes one questions why be so defensive if this is isolated and completely out-of-character for the mainstream).

If someone could tell me why the standards are completely different for one group and not another maybe I wouldn't make such a big deal of it now.

Things That Fry Me

This is just a general list of things that not only get my goat but butcher it, roast it and leave a bonfire mess on my front lawn.

The word, Canuck- the noun is Canadian, as in "I am a Canadian." The adjective is Canadian, as in Canadian literature (HA! I made myself laugh by typing Canadian literature!). If you cannot use the word in either function or even bring yourself to say it, you shouldn't be allowed to speak.

Why is it that every nonactor or some other nonentity who happened to be associated with Canada at some point has to be glorified in the Canadian press (I'm looking right at you, Pamela Anderson, even though I really don't want to)? Who the hell cares? If these celebrities are so proud to be Canadian then why do they live in the US? Oh, that's right! Money- the very reason that drives all the other Canadian talent across the border.

This criticism can be applied to American celebrities who love Canada so much (they obviously haven't lived there) but will not surrender their American citizenship and become tax-paying citizens of Canada. Dinks.

Why does the singer Pink have a career? Is there a market for butchy loudmouths who hate tonality and harmony? Also, the following singers shouldn't have careers as well: Beyonce, Mariah Carey, Brittany Spears and K-Mooch, any rapper, Kelly Clarkson, Barbra Streisand, Michael Jackson, that creepy girly guy on Korean commercials for pomegranate juice (insert skin crawl here).

People who further the careers of the following- George Clooney, Kiera Knightley, Julia Roberts, Tom Cruise, Ben Affleck, Cameron Diaz, Sarah Jessica Parker and Jessica Simpson. Shame on you! What were you thinking?!

Excessive grammatical, spelling and punctuation mistakes. Now, far be it for me to point a finger. I'm sure there are several such mistakes in this post alone, but at least I give a care to fix my mistakes. There are people who do not care to speak or write in their first language (in this case, English) properly. Why? Since when was gutter-speak and poor technical ability ever a sign of intelligence and seriousness?

People who give their kids stupid names like Apple or Brittney or Montana (it's a state, dammit!) or Taylor or Caitlin or some other rubbish trendy name (don't get me started on "African" names). These people obviously don't love their children.

The Da Vinci Code- Michael Coren, a columnist for the Toronto Sun, had it right- no one would make a film denying the Holocaust and then justify it as entertainment. So this rubbish is justified how? Entertainment? Fact? Fiction? Acceptable targeting?

People who walk slowly at subway stations (chiefly because they are on their cell phones or sending text messages) and obstruct others' paths, I'm going to kick you in the back. Fair warning.

China, the world's biggest polluter, violator of human-rights and underhanded aggressor and enabler of aggression (see: IRAN and KOREA, NORTH).

Ditto for people who buy cheap crap from the aforementioned country.

People who have their music up too loud. Yes, that's right- share your music with everyone.

The conflagration of fug. Ruffles, sequins, brown and pinks together, suede boots, cowboy boots, jean shorts, jean shorts with high-heels, leggings, stocking-socks. All of it is BAD BAD BAD.

Thank you for letting me get a few things off my chest.

Aaahhhh, Juuuuunnnne........

I'll return with some anger but first, June.....

This was taken outside of Gyeongbuk Palace, Seoul, South Korea.

The Last Acceptable Prejudice

You want to know why Catholics are mad about The Da Vinci Code, among other things? Read these actual posts from a forum run by canoe.ca (which may or may not be the actual opinions of the owners):

"The vatican has it's knickers in a knot about the book/movie because, even though it's billed as a fictional thriller/mystery, the book is about Jesus fathering a child with a wife and the bloodline existing today. I guess the vatican doesn't want people believing that this could actually be true..."

'The book was a very good read..kind of a cross between John Grisham and Hans Kung. I too do not know why the Vtaican keeps shooting itself in the foot with all these denunciations over a work of fiction - they are usually more astute."

"grumps: "they are usually more astute" You're kidding, right?"

"At least the Cardinals didn't try to whip their followers into a murderous frenzy because they read a book, or saw a cartoon, that was arbitrary to their faith. They have their leather thong panties in a knot because someone had the gaul to write a book that was hugely succesful and shoots holes in thier little financial institution from which they derive everything and all of the comforts that they tell their followers are "evil.""

Any wonder why? Spelling, factual and theological mistakes and all. The last acceptable prejudice. None of this is criticism or educated opinions. It's the same crap all over again. Nothing ever changes. Of course Catholics are angry. Not only are they and their religion attacked but there isn't any freshness in the stupidity on what is so obviously noxious bigotry.

More later.

You Say Potato....

(mmmm...potatoes...)

Sorry.

Speech becomes "intolerant", "bigotted" or "hurtful" depending on who says it. Watch.

Homosexuality is immoral.

Say that outloud and see how many angry letters (or letter-bombs), protests and bricks through your window you get.

Change the philosophy.

Catholicism is immoral.

Now it's okay (unless the president of a Catholic focus group writes a letter to the editor which will either be promptly ignored or misquoted).

Islam is immoral.

Burn, baby, burn (said outside a Danish consulate only).

Being Chinese is immoral.

That's okay because Chinese people don't have feelings the way you and I do. Say it enough and it makes it easier to trade with a dictatorship and ignore the slave labour, shocking abuses of human rights and the underhanded way in which they support other dictatorships as cruel and elusive as they are.

Of course, no one has the absolute right to free speech. You can't scream out "fire" when there is no fire but you also can't say homosexuality violates the precepts of your religion, either. Why don't people just be honest and say: "You can say whatever you like as long I like what you have to say." While we're being honest, that is, but that would make us hypocrites and you can't drive to Vancouver to discover yourself in an SUV with a "Free Tibet" bumper sticker or backpack through India with a Canadian flag on your backpack (because everyone in India loves you and has completely forgotten how your government screwed over its citizens and yours in the Air India Flight 182 case).

Everyone wants to speak their mind, or what little mind they have, and have the last word. I suppose its an inherent need to survive in a dog-eat-dog world. But freedom of speech becomes a ridiculous sentiment given that the same people who clamour for it are also the same people who will whip around like a cobra and cry "hate speech!" whenever they hear something they don't like. It's immaterial if the comment is factual or rooted in a centuries' old culture or religion (it does become material, oddly enough, if the comment is so absurd and rootless that that word absurd actually jumps out of the dictionary and slaps the face of the offending commentator, demanding a quarter every time they say something stupid).

It becomes equally sad when any kind of speech is allowed under the assumption (insert own joke here) that whoever hears the opinion being expressed can discern truth from fiction (The Da Vinci Crap is a timely example of this). If that were so, then any twit denying the Holocaust should be able to continue denying it and everyone around would shake their heads in disbelief that someone would deny an historical fact and say something so atrocious. But given that only one in three Canadians can pinpoint the principle victims of the Holocaust (that being Jews), Holocaust denial becomes dangerous and inflammatory. Is it the fault of parents and educators that something like that should occur? I think so. Look what I just did! I expressed a dangerous and educated opinion. Let the denial and finger-pointing begin!

People won't admit outloud they have an opposition to free speech because it makes them seem out-of-step with the times but in reality such opposition already exists. No one will come clean.

Let's see how long it takes for this post to be taken out-of-context, misquoted or blasted (if read at all).

Yes, We KNOW

If you don't know this by now then I don't know what do say.

Drugs are bad, kids.

Finding Your Hidden Racist

I recently purchased conservative columnist, Michelle Malkin's book, Unhinged, a scathing and shockingly true account of liberal hypocrisy and lunacy (before you condemn me for casting a value judgment, just read the book first). I didn't buy it because I was a fan of Mrs. Malkin. Indeed, I had a passing familiarity with her. I had read a column or two, rued it for a bit, agreed with her (probably immensely) but that was it. No, my purchase had more to with the jacket than fandom. She had on the jacket "praise" gotten from blogs and e-mails, slurs of such vitrolity that they won't be typed up here (but you can view them here). She has been accused, principally because of her views, of "selling out" or being some kind of traitor (or much, much worse). She writes:

"Of course, the allegation that I am a self-hating Asian-American is nothing new. I do find it interesting, however, that my critics are simultaneously accusing me of playing up my ethnic heritage and trying to conceal it. Atrios, on the other hand, has acknowledged that it is my critics--not me--who have an unhealthy preoccupation with my race."

Therein lies a rather duplicitous rub. For as much as the liberal masses like to proclaim racial and sexual equality, they leave stone unturned when attacking one, resorting to childish and disgusting name-calling and threats. Even the so-called liberal media does not refrain from playing the race card when it should be completely irrelevant. Malkin writes of a Congressman Bobby Jindal, an American of East Indian descent, who was constantly written up as "dark-skinned" or as a son of East Indian immigrants by the press. I didn't realise that being of East Indian heritage was relevant or imperative to being taken seriously, unless you're a victim of Air India Flight 182. And, naturally, if one is of the same ethnicity or country they must have the same ideas on everything, which must make Mrs. Malkin a real outsider. Whatever.

But what is racism?

Is it listing the thousands of unlisted immigrants hiding in the United States? To be practical, one cannot have just anyone run around in the country. They could be anybody, even unsavoury types with a penchant for crime. Yet there are the good, honest masses who do labour no one else will touch with a ten-foot barge pole for a dollar an hour. Why shouldn't they be allowed to stay? Is there anyone else to sweep streets, scrub out toilets or babysit obnoxious children? The New World is filled with immigrants. "Strangers shall not be injured or oppressed; "for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" (Exodus: xxii. 20, xxiii. 9)" Or New York or Los Angeles, as the case may be.

Is it racial profiling? Well, the hijackers on September 11th were all from the Middle East, the suicide-bombers who murdered their compatriots in Great Britain were diseffected members of Pakistani or Middle Eastern descent (let's not forget the IRA was at it long before they were but received far more scathing and a lot less apologetics) and the fanatics who burned, trashed, killed and threatened anything Danish after the Muhommed/ cartoon scandal were of the Middle Eastern/Islamic variety. Not everyone from the Middle East is unhinged (to put it delicately). But there are many who ruin things for everyone else, so, thanks, you jihadist morons.

Is it the failure to hire minorities? Should someone be hired as corporate eye-candy or is real skill good enough? It is quite possible that one might not be hired because one cannot perform the necessary tasks, just as it is possible that someone is hired because he is the nephew of someone high up the ladder. Welcome to the world of being screwed-over where no one is ever alone.

Is it the pandering of minorities so as not to offend? What guilt, shame or angst does one possess that sentencing circles or sympathy for suicide-bombers becomes pragmatically, if not morally, acceptable? Has anyone ever heard of sentencing circles before? Should a society within a society have their own (ineffective) brand of justice? What degree of understanding must one possess to see past carnage and pieces of someone's body pasted on a wall somewhere because a militant group paid a suicidal individual to make the ultimate- and futile- sacrifice? I can't make myself understand why someone would sacrifice their children, but I guess I'm not enlightened enough.

No matter in what age or region we live, we will always have inequalities. Someone will not like someone's skin colour, a man will not take orders from a woman, someone will always be without. I don't think this will ever change, no matter how noble or determined our efforts. However, we will be no nearer to these lofty ideals if our only way to attack difference of opinion is to resort to the same things we claim to despise.

Some TV Musings

I'm sure we're all tired of that lunatic Cruise and the fake pregnancy (we all know it was, people), Brangelina and all that other tawdry filth that Hollywood thinks we should give a crap about. But it's that tawdry filth I will tarry over awhile.

The age-old debate over what children should be exposed to is a tired but still-relevant one. If one wishes to have a well-rounded and well-grounded child, avoid reading People magazine altogether. Does anyone care what some high school drop-out thinks (hack writer or actor)? Probably not. But certain persons do care about indecency rules.

Quite simply, if one does not wish their children to be exposed to violence, ect., fine. Turn off the TV, educate your child- and yourselves- about the nonsense out there and leave it at that. But what does one do if the parents (or parent) do/does not care or have/has no clue? How do you reason with a parent who sees nothing wrong with three-way sex scenes (or talk thereof) or rat-eating or some other mindless crap that is not interesting and not amusing? Well let's rent Reservoir Dogs, sit the kids in front of the screen and find out what really annoys said lazy parents.

Just some thoughts.

Happy Easter!

Good Friday

...He said, "It is finished!" And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit."

The Gospel According to Saint John

Reimbursement

A Dutch politician believes that stay-at-home mothers should pay back the state because their staying at home with their children is a waste of the money used to educate them.

Fair enough.

Now the Netherlands should pay back Canada. The heroic sacrifice of men during the Second World War was not so that the country could become a benign fascist state where children and the disabled are euthanised, pornography is rampant, dope is smoked freely, companies provide chemicals for people like Saddam Hussein to commit mass murder with or "peace-keepers" to allow murder in the former Yugoslavia.

Keep your tulips and stick it in your ear, Holland.

It's a damn bunny!

This is getting out of hand.

Is there hope yet?

Just a quick post offering dear readers the chance to peruse some wickedly spot-on thought- Michael Coren's views on the Da Vinci Code nonsense (the film of which he once termed as "excreble") and His Excellency, Bishop Fred Henry, on how far Canada has fallen when we fear the Name of God- and how it could be changing.

"When they came for me, no one spoke up."

Yes, I realise the title is cliched but necessary.

Abdul Rahman, an Afghan who converted to Christianity, is now in danger of being executed because of his conversion. None of this should be surprising seeing as things like this and this happen on a continual basis in countries where Sharia law and the gun go hand-in-hand. I'm actually surprised this story is getting the buzz that it is. My biggest question is why none of this has an effect on a public so willingly blind to the dangers of an allegedly peaceful and rational religion. The September 11th attacks. The adulterous Nigerian woman threatened with death. The Danish cartoon controversy. The daily murder going on Iraq. The list could go on. Do people base their opinions on the Koran (or Bible, or Talmud, or Vedic texts) they've never read? Is it Western guilt or angst? What? Is anyone out there going to say what they should be thinking, i.e., none of this should be happening?

I hope so.

This Is Why Cousins Shouldn't Marry

This ad has no place on Canadian airwaves.

Why?

According to Australian tourism minister, Fran Bailey, the half-full glass of alcohol was "unacceptable".

Since bloody when? When has beer ever been a problem in Canada? When has the depiction of beer- or practically anything else- been a problem in Canada? This is from a country whose jingoism is dependant on god-awful Molson commericals.

The controversy over this ad (the problematic ad was barred in Great Britain for other reasons) has proved fortuitous for the tourism ministry whose website experienced an online traffic jam, maybe even a tourism windfall for Australia.

It's not like Canada can't use a windfall.

Saint Patrick's Day- Things You Might Hear

It's possible to hear these things (add your own if you feel it necessary):

"Happy St. Patrick's Day- bring it on!"

"Today is the Day of the Potato Eater!"

"Who stole my beer?"

"You know what would be good before I operate? Beer!" (just joking!)

"Oh, I couldn't possibly fit in any more cabbage."

Include your own.

Saint Patrick's Day

'Men's hearts of old were drops of flame
That from the saffron morning came,
Or drops of silver joy that fell
Out of the moon's pale twisted shell;
But now hearts cry that hearts are slaves,
And toss and turn in narrow caves;
But here there is nor law nor rule,
Nor have hands held a weary tool;
And here there is nor Change nor Death,
But only kind and merry breath,
For joy is God and God is joy.'

"The Wanderings of Oisin", William Butler Yeats

A Kinder, Gentler Post

With all this ranting and cultivating of rage gardens, I'd like to try something different. I give you... a Jindo puppy. Let us all bask in the glow of his cuteness (sigh).

Two Posts For the Price of One: The Oscars- Either This Award Show Goes, or I Do!

Is anyone tired of sitting through four hours of self-congratulatory pig crap? I know I am. The Oscars pimp their own brand of movies and slap the liberal flavour-of-the-month on the back, not recognise excellence. If that ever does happen, it's a fluke.

And speeches, my God! Shut up, George Clooney! The Oscar voters had daring to do what? Make sure another Batman is never made? Maybe we should thank the Academy for that. And can't anyone just say 'thank you' and sit down?

But the real victim here is Jon Stewart. When that man can't bring the funny because the Oscar show writers are hacks and egos get in the way, no one wins.

Two Posts For the Price of One: Is Anyone Bothered By This?

Is anyone bothered by this?

Is there no parent out there who is even remotely concerned that a special-interest group- any special-interest group- has contact with their children without their knowledge or consent? Is there anyone out there annoyed at this particular special-interest group?

I wouldn't care what special-interest group was out there, even an anti-smoking one, talking to my children. If I don't know about it and certainly if I didn't approve of it, I would hopping mad if they even looked at my kids, let alone tried to inundate them with a particular brand of rhetoric. If you are not the parent, butt out.

Parents have to be especially vigilant and not let others raise their children for them.

With regards to the special-interest group in question- what? Worried that the opposite is taking effect? Boo-hoo.

Lent: Jesus in the Desert

And He was in the wilderness forty days being tempted by Satan; and He was with the wild beasts, and the angels were ministering to Him.

(Mark 1:13)

Graduation Day!

They were brave. They were nervous. They were happy. They were sad. They were dapper. They were stunning. They were stunned. They were blinded by flash photography. They were graduates.

See it all here.

Just saying....

Read this, and this, and this and this.....

Make up your own minds.

Happy Saint Valentine's Day!

Settle Down!

The outrage over a cartoon printed in a Danish newspaper deemed offensive by many over the world has proven to be more volatile than the initial insult itself.

A Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, originally ran the pictures in September 2005. They were recently reprinted in a French newspaper and that is when the real trouble began.

Before I go any further, let me say that deliberately offending any religion is bad form. Whether one believes in it or not, a religion is something important to someone else and should not be taken lightly or cavalierly.

That being said, what we are seeing now is not righteous indignation but self-righteousness in its ugliest form.

Of course Muslims have every right to be offended by what they see as a slight to their religion. That is the privelige and right of a member of any free society. In the Islamic tradition, it is forbidden to depict the prophet Mohommed or any other prophet, for that matter. In fact, The Passion of the Christ was not shown in some Middle Eastern countries because Jesus is seen as a prophet (not the Son of God). If they so wish, they may have peaceful boycotts or write angry, non-threatening letters to the editor. What has become intolerable is the violence, slurs and just plain irrationality of it all.

The pictures first ran in the Danish newspaper (and other Scandinavian papers) after the writer Kare Bluitgen expressed his frustration over not being able to produce a children's book about Mohommed for fear that radicals may attack him. How right he was! Everything from boycotts of Danish goods and newspapers to effigy-burning and violence has turned what is claimed to be a dialogue about freedom of speech on its head.

There are so many things to be said here that is hard to know where to begin.

I don't think Scandinavian countries are friends of religion and I would hardly call any member of the European Union (or would-be members) forward-thinking because they co-habit and have state-run healthcare. Anti-semitism and anti-immigration feelings are on the rise in Europe. The vanguards of social "easy-does-it" are now at the crossroads of their very civilisation- they are dying and those who will not assimilate are moving in. Perhaps this is another topic for another day so I'll wrap this up by saying there is a huge clash of ideas and values (used in the loosest sense of the word). A dead Dutch politician and a threatened director are proof of that.

Were the cartoons a case for freedom of speech? Were they a way for opening a dialogue on the socio-political nature of modern Islam? I guess we'll never know because we're not allowed to talk about it. Ever. The slightest criticism of Islam or its followers is verboten. One can place the Crucifix into a jar of urine or smear an image of the Virgin Mary with excrement and its called art. One can depict the now-stricken Ariel Sharon as blood-thirsty and it's dubbed freedom of the press. Ancient statues of Buddha can be reduced to rubble and there is nothing from UNESCO. Were not these acts offensive? Of course they were but it doesn't matter. Not one of the adherents of these religions will burn effigies or attack consulates. It's okay to offend Catholics. Jews aren't people. Buddhists don't have feelings like the rest of us. Oh wait! None of that is true! It's not okay to offend Catholics or snide Jews or Buddhists! How wrong we all were.
Now to the crux of this post (at long last!)- why is it that if something even remotely rubs some people the wrong way everyone must kow-tow to them before it really hits the proverbial fan? It's not like Islam is putting its best foot forward in all this. What is going on is hardly civilised. "We're burning effigies now. Our next step is to blow up a bus!" These are tactics of ill-mannered, barely educated bullies who will not be rational at any time, even in their displeasure with something.

Just write a letter to the editor like everyone else!

Seolnal

In Korea, Seolnal is the celebration of the lunar new year. More commonly known as the Chinese New Year to many in the West, this celebration contains considerably less fireworks and dragon-dancing. Instead, people visit their families (usually the oldest son in the family plays host), play games and make manduguk (meat dumpling soup). Visiting one's family is no small feat during this time. The traffic is horrible. A two hour trip can take six hours because of traffic congestion. If you ever find yourself in South Korea at this time, count yourself lucky if you have nowhere to go. Sitting in traffic is never fun.

We had a new year's celebration at my school. There was a lot of mandu making. I was told that the shape of the mandu one made was vital to one's future so I tried to make the best shapes possible. We had a couple of students make some really attractive mandu!

We then played games. I was particularly amused by the human yutnari game. Yutnari is a sort of dice game played with four wooden sticks. The sticks have symbols on them. They are rolled and if the sticks are rolled in a certain way then a stone marker is moved along circles on a board. This time around, human "markers" were used. A kind of hackey-sack was also played, along with a game of kong noli, a game of jackstones. I never got the hang of these games so I just stood back and took a few pictures. There were no sebae (special bows given to elders)this time around so subsequently there was no sebaeton (customary money given for satisfactory bows) handed out.

View the pictures here.

Now What?

The Canadian Conservatives (in name only) won a minority government, ending twelve years of (l)Liberal corruption. I don't expect anything to get better, really. The country is one or two steps away from being either the fifty-first state or belonging to North Korea's puppet-master, China. There is still no law and order, or national security, 0.6 % percent of the population have officially made marriage a laughing stock, the healthcare system is down the tubes, there are too many fat and ignorant people who still have no clue what is going on in their country or anyone else's but they are damn sure that the Americans are to blame. But at least we have another government to blame for running what is left of the country into the ground.
A few questions-
the Bloc Quebecois, a party existing solely for the purpose of tearing the country apart, still stands because....?
Why did Political Barbie- I mean- Belinda Stronach survive? Did the wealth and privelige of this college drop-out carry her through?
For those of you who voted Liberal, it is obvious that reason, common sense, overwhelming evidence and crayons could not sway you from the unspeakable evil that is the Liberal Party of Canada and Hitler's brain that runs it. Nothing more can be said to you. I mean, if Scott Reid can run up a beer tab at the expense of other "beerswillers" and Marc Garneau's gaff about grants to the handicapped doesn't disgust you (because AdScam hasn't), then what can one say?
I should probably throw in a question about the NDP but are they really a party?
Anyway, the next four years should prove....something.... I have no strength left to wonder how bad it can get.

Meh New Year's

I personally have never understood New Year's celebrations. People act as though they are on the cusp of something new when, in fact, when they wake up (hopefully in the shorts they left the house with) they are just repeating the same, old routine as the year before. You begin something new when there is a life-change, like marriage, family or a new job. These things can occur any time. And shouldn't resolutions be made throughout the year? Shouldn't we all strive to improve ourselves daily and not just once a year?
Just some thoughts.