Happy New Year.
I guess.
I hope.
Really.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Honour Among Thieves
To understand the generosity of such an act, we must look at the broader picture:
China has one of the worst human rights records on the planet.
The Chinese sell arms to whoever will buy them.
The Chinese will not buy Chinese-produced toys but are glad to give them to Canadians (see the conditions in this toy factory).
China has a permanent seat on the UN security council. It has used that very position to oppose Israel.
Now China offers the Palestinians- who want Israel eliminated- one million dollars.
What human beings they are.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Boxing Week Post
Sorry I haven't blogged as of late. I was too busy having fun.
For the first time in Iraq's history, Christmas has been declared a public holiday. Iraqi Christians are still wary, however, due to sectarian violence perpetrated by those who abhor anything not Islamic. This kind of attitude wouldn't be tolerated anywhere else. I have yet to hear Washington Post or Christopher Hitchens say anything. I don't think I ever will.
In Bosnia, things got rather heated when Santa Claus did not appear in local kindergartens. Parents protested the ill-favoured political correctness that racks Western institutions. This proves, I feel, that adults from every walk of life and every stripe can decide what is good for their children and not ban Christmas. God bless us, everyone.
To further prove the goodness of Christmas, candy canes (specifically, the peppermint oil in them) kill germs and settle stomachs, and mistletoe helps cancer patients. Is there anything Christmas can't do?
And now for less pleasant stuff.
The horrendous pounding of the Gaza Strip shows once more how the West refuses to see how Hamas uses the Palestinians as sandbags in its "war" against Jews (not Israelis, Jews). Israel is being battered by the international community because it possesses the temerity to fight for itself.
We must keep in mind these things:
-Israel is its own state with freedoms that exist nowhere else in the Middle East.
-the Palestinian leadership cares not a whit about the human sandbags they string along, and they never have. Everyone who is not them will suffer. A new code in Sharia law has allowed for crucifixion, an ultimate blasphemy in both legal and cosmological terms.
-the Palestinians, indeed, everyone in the Middle East, will always be a small people because they can never forge their own destiny. They instead kill their own children, smash greenhouses and throw rocks at armed soldiers. Not even other Arabs like them (not surprising considering the slavery and maltreatment throughout the region). The Palestinians can throw bombs but can't beg for help from their Muslim neighbours.
Should Israel stop? I think not. Time and again they've waited for peace and all they've gotten for their trouble is Hamas. when Hamas goes, maybe then things will be different.
For some reason, Stalin was voted third best Russian ever in a rather tilted contest. Joseph Stalin, an ethnic Georgian, a dictator responsible for the deaths of millions, engineer of the Great Terror, butcher and tyrant, happens to have surpassed in glory to Shostakovich, Dostoevsky, Solzhenitsyn, Pasternak (both of whom must have had a special place for Stalin), Peter the Great, even Pavel Chekov (yes, I know...). Only in Putin's Russia can such a thing happen. Maybe Ukraine can rehash the glorious memories of its Orange Revolution or when Irakli Tsirekidze, the Georgian judo Olympian, destroyed Ivan Pershin, the Russian one. I do hope Japan is up for rubbing the Russo-Japanese War in Russia's face. Nothing says "your empire is a rotten one" like a history lesson.
In conclusion, check out this old picture I took while in Nagasaki (which, for a time, was the only port open to foreigners). This sign informs visitors that a Russian mission once landed there.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Merry Christmas
And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
In the same region there were some shepherds staying out in the fields and keeping watch over their flock by night.
And an angel of the Lord suddenly stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them; and they were terribly frightened.
But the angel said to them,
"Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people; for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. This will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger."
And suddenly there appeared with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying,
"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased."
Luke 2: 7-14
Christmas Myths
This essay was sent to me and it is re-printed with kind permission.
Christmas was placed to moved out Roman holidays and phase in Christian ones
This idea is not a "new" idea as many people think that we have "come to realise this" in our more modern times. It was suggested by German Protestant Paul Ernst Jablonski (does anyone else detect the irony here?) that Christmas was placed on December 25 to muscle out Dies Natalis Solis Invicti. This however would be incorrect.
While there were debates as to when Christ was born (or if we should even mark the date at all), the date being settled upon as December 25 was done in 221 AD. The cult concerning Sol Invictus (the unconquerable sun god) existed during this time, but was small and eventually ceased by 222 AD. While it was celebrated, it was done on December 17. In 274 AD, Emperor Aurelian restored the festival of Sol Invictus and designated December 25 as the date of celebration. This may have been an attempt (to the contrary) to appropriate Christmas. Recall that Christians were still persecuted in this time.
Christians have also been accused of bastardising Saturnalia, another Roman holiday. This argument is flawed as well for several reasons. When the Romans celebrated Saturnalia, it was celebrated from December 17 through December 23. It was not one day. In fact, given the Roman calendar as being as it was, it would be hard to place a Christian holiday on any day in December with out being accused of appropriation. It would be hard to place Christmas on any day of the year with out facing similar accusations. Remember that the Romans had many holidays. Over 120 days of their year had a holiday on it. You could barely go more than 5 days with out celebrating something.
If Christmas was moved to take over Saturnalia, why would an existing Roman holiday be moved to the same day as Christmas? Why not put extra effort into what was already placed there? The two accusations of Roman appropriation clash.
Christmas was placed to moved out pagan European holidays and phase in Christian ones
This idea is also not new, and has been suggested as early as the 17th century by men such as Isaac Newton. However, this idea does not stand to scrutiny.
As already addressed, Christmas was being celebrated in December by the early 3rd century. This predates the spread of Christianity to the Germanic areas of Europe. Christmas is accused of taking over Yule, but history clearly indicates that the Christianising of Scandinavia did begin until (approximately) the 8th century, and in some parts didn't finish until the 18th century.
Still we are brought to the issue of the date itself. With the insurmountable issue of placement to avoid "scheduling conflicts", why place Christmas on the date it was? Unless of course they believed the date to be correct.
Reasons for believing this to be the correct date vary. Many people who made the decision for the placement of Christmas were around when various texts existed, that are no longer extant. Also, much information was considered still part of "recent memory."
Part of the reason for placing Jesus' birth on the 25th (of December), was because there was an ancient Jewish belief that the great prophets were to have an "integral age" (where you die on the same day as either your birth or your conception). Examples of this belief exist in history. It was believed that Jesus was conceived on March 25 (according to some historians, such as Sextus Julius Africanus), so a nine month count would place his birth on December 25. However, modern understand of biology would say that the date could shifted days of even a few weeks one way or the other. This does not negate the fact that ancients people's truly believed this date to be accurate.
Likewise, some traditions traced back from the date ancients people's believed Jesus was crucified. This was believed to have been either March 25 or April 6.
Ultimately the "final decision" was made in the 4th century, but this does not legitimise the claim that it was to ease transition from paganism into Christianity (no one seems to agree which person made the decisions, only that it must have been to force out old ideas), as evidence exists that this practice was already in place. However, Christmas is still celebrated at different times of the year (still in December or January) by various people's world wide.
Christmas is actually a mish-mash of various pagan holidays
Among the reasons for the idea that Christmas is actually pagan in origin, is the belief in Santa Claus. He has been likened to a horned god in the myths of various European faiths. Likening the horned god and the reindeer to Santa is specious as the reindeer are not Santa but the beast of burden used to pull his sleigh. In reality this practice is not uncommon for the cold areas to which reindeer are native. Hence the name reindeer. Reins being the straps used to tie the deer to the sleigh. Similar to the name "sled dog." A flying reindeer however is unheard of.
It should also be remembered, that St.Nicholas was a Turk, not a German. He was a bishop of Myra in Turkey. He was not Germanic figure as modern art depicts him. To liken him to and Germanic gods would be specious. The image of Santa Claus that has been popularised came from the poem "The Night Before Christmas" written in 1822 by Major Henry Livingston Jr. That image sprung up in that time. Saint Nicholas was a very real man, not mythological. People still had beliefs that Saint Nicholas gave gifts on Christmas before the poem was written, though their mental picture of him was different. In fact it was this belief that inspired the poem. St.Nicholas' feast day is December 4. Also we should remember St.Martin who shares similar status as St.Nicholas, but that he has not come under fire equally.
The use of Christmas trees and Advent wreaths also feed into this notion. This is true and these were taken from various customs of pagan peoples, but this still fails to establish "pagan origins" for several reasons:
1) Christmas existed independently from these customs and the peoples who practiced them
2) these customs are not required to celebrate Christmas
3) these customs have no religious significance
4) no culture holds a patent on trees, wreaths or candles
Other religions have also borrowed customs. It was decreed that if possible, the missionaries should allow the converts to keep their old ways, should they not conflict with Christianity. Such as the change from a Celtic Cross to a Celtic Crucifix. Anything that could be kept and Christianised, was. This doesn't change the fact that Christ was born. As such, He would have a birth date.
The Advent Wreath has a debated date of origin, but is is commonly believed to be of German origin. However, when it was originally conceived, it was intended to have a candle for every day of advent until Christmas.
While the use of decorative pines trees with candles existed before hand, it is not a requirement. When this custom was adopted, the use of candles was not included. It was not until Martin Luther (does anyone else detect the irony in this as well?) placed candles on the tree to represent the stars over Bethlehem, that this custom was adopted.
While it is true that traditions from other religions have been borrowed to supplement cultural pass times, these are mere games and decorations. It does not borrow or supplement doctrine. These practices are secular, and are distinguished from Christmas. It is easy to confuse these two when one remains ignorant of what Christmas is about, and what the activities are for.
Christmas is not:
- about trees-
about lights
- about candles
- about winter
- about rebirth (actually, only one birth was needed thanks)
- about frivolousness
Jesus was not some Roman or Germanic hero, Christianised upon the arrival of strange new men who wanted to have words with the local priests, and The Three Wise Men were not members of the Thule.
While we can see that some things are borrowed from the traditions of other peoples, it changes nothing when defining Christmas as truly Christian. Using a wreath concocted by Germanic peoples doesn't change the motivations for using it in the first place. It will not change the fact that Jesus is widely considered to be a historical figure (while the supernatural nature of His being is debated) and as such people would chose to mark the date He was born.
There is also the origin of the word "Christmas" (being Criste-Maesse, or Mass of Christ) first being used in 1038, St. Boniface cutting down a fir tree to prove to Germanic tribes that it was not a god, the decorating of fir trees with apples to mimic Paradise Trees in the Garden of Eden, the census ordered by Caesar Augustus, stars and the fact that feasts like Saturnalia are not only different from Christmas but no longer exist. This essay says quite a lot, actually.
And so does this:
Merry Christmas.
Christmas was placed to moved out Roman holidays and phase in Christian ones
This idea is not a "new" idea as many people think that we have "come to realise this" in our more modern times. It was suggested by German Protestant Paul Ernst Jablonski (does anyone else detect the irony here?) that Christmas was placed on December 25 to muscle out Dies Natalis Solis Invicti. This however would be incorrect.
While there were debates as to when Christ was born (or if we should even mark the date at all), the date being settled upon as December 25 was done in 221 AD. The cult concerning Sol Invictus (the unconquerable sun god) existed during this time, but was small and eventually ceased by 222 AD. While it was celebrated, it was done on December 17. In 274 AD, Emperor Aurelian restored the festival of Sol Invictus and designated December 25 as the date of celebration. This may have been an attempt (to the contrary) to appropriate Christmas. Recall that Christians were still persecuted in this time.
Christians have also been accused of bastardising Saturnalia, another Roman holiday. This argument is flawed as well for several reasons. When the Romans celebrated Saturnalia, it was celebrated from December 17 through December 23. It was not one day. In fact, given the Roman calendar as being as it was, it would be hard to place a Christian holiday on any day in December with out being accused of appropriation. It would be hard to place Christmas on any day of the year with out facing similar accusations. Remember that the Romans had many holidays. Over 120 days of their year had a holiday on it. You could barely go more than 5 days with out celebrating something.
If Christmas was moved to take over Saturnalia, why would an existing Roman holiday be moved to the same day as Christmas? Why not put extra effort into what was already placed there? The two accusations of Roman appropriation clash.
Christmas was placed to moved out pagan European holidays and phase in Christian ones
This idea is also not new, and has been suggested as early as the 17th century by men such as Isaac Newton. However, this idea does not stand to scrutiny.
As already addressed, Christmas was being celebrated in December by the early 3rd century. This predates the spread of Christianity to the Germanic areas of Europe. Christmas is accused of taking over Yule, but history clearly indicates that the Christianising of Scandinavia did begin until (approximately) the 8th century, and in some parts didn't finish until the 18th century.
Still we are brought to the issue of the date itself. With the insurmountable issue of placement to avoid "scheduling conflicts", why place Christmas on the date it was? Unless of course they believed the date to be correct.
Reasons for believing this to be the correct date vary. Many people who made the decision for the placement of Christmas were around when various texts existed, that are no longer extant. Also, much information was considered still part of "recent memory."
Part of the reason for placing Jesus' birth on the 25th (of December), was because there was an ancient Jewish belief that the great prophets were to have an "integral age" (where you die on the same day as either your birth or your conception). Examples of this belief exist in history. It was believed that Jesus was conceived on March 25 (according to some historians, such as Sextus Julius Africanus), so a nine month count would place his birth on December 25. However, modern understand of biology would say that the date could shifted days of even a few weeks one way or the other. This does not negate the fact that ancients people's truly believed this date to be accurate.
Likewise, some traditions traced back from the date ancients people's believed Jesus was crucified. This was believed to have been either March 25 or April 6.
Ultimately the "final decision" was made in the 4th century, but this does not legitimise the claim that it was to ease transition from paganism into Christianity (no one seems to agree which person made the decisions, only that it must have been to force out old ideas), as evidence exists that this practice was already in place. However, Christmas is still celebrated at different times of the year (still in December or January) by various people's world wide.
Christmas is actually a mish-mash of various pagan holidays
Among the reasons for the idea that Christmas is actually pagan in origin, is the belief in Santa Claus. He has been likened to a horned god in the myths of various European faiths. Likening the horned god and the reindeer to Santa is specious as the reindeer are not Santa but the beast of burden used to pull his sleigh. In reality this practice is not uncommon for the cold areas to which reindeer are native. Hence the name reindeer. Reins being the straps used to tie the deer to the sleigh. Similar to the name "sled dog." A flying reindeer however is unheard of.
It should also be remembered, that St.Nicholas was a Turk, not a German. He was a bishop of Myra in Turkey. He was not Germanic figure as modern art depicts him. To liken him to and Germanic gods would be specious. The image of Santa Claus that has been popularised came from the poem "The Night Before Christmas" written in 1822 by Major Henry Livingston Jr. That image sprung up in that time. Saint Nicholas was a very real man, not mythological. People still had beliefs that Saint Nicholas gave gifts on Christmas before the poem was written, though their mental picture of him was different. In fact it was this belief that inspired the poem. St.Nicholas' feast day is December 4. Also we should remember St.Martin who shares similar status as St.Nicholas, but that he has not come under fire equally.
The use of Christmas trees and Advent wreaths also feed into this notion. This is true and these were taken from various customs of pagan peoples, but this still fails to establish "pagan origins" for several reasons:
1) Christmas existed independently from these customs and the peoples who practiced them
2) these customs are not required to celebrate Christmas
3) these customs have no religious significance
4) no culture holds a patent on trees, wreaths or candles
Other religions have also borrowed customs. It was decreed that if possible, the missionaries should allow the converts to keep their old ways, should they not conflict with Christianity. Such as the change from a Celtic Cross to a Celtic Crucifix. Anything that could be kept and Christianised, was. This doesn't change the fact that Christ was born. As such, He would have a birth date.
The Advent Wreath has a debated date of origin, but is is commonly believed to be of German origin. However, when it was originally conceived, it was intended to have a candle for every day of advent until Christmas.
While the use of decorative pines trees with candles existed before hand, it is not a requirement. When this custom was adopted, the use of candles was not included. It was not until Martin Luther (does anyone else detect the irony in this as well?) placed candles on the tree to represent the stars over Bethlehem, that this custom was adopted.
While it is true that traditions from other religions have been borrowed to supplement cultural pass times, these are mere games and decorations. It does not borrow or supplement doctrine. These practices are secular, and are distinguished from Christmas. It is easy to confuse these two when one remains ignorant of what Christmas is about, and what the activities are for.
Christmas is not:
- about trees-
about lights
- about candles
- about winter
- about rebirth (actually, only one birth was needed thanks)
- about frivolousness
Jesus was not some Roman or Germanic hero, Christianised upon the arrival of strange new men who wanted to have words with the local priests, and The Three Wise Men were not members of the Thule.
While we can see that some things are borrowed from the traditions of other peoples, it changes nothing when defining Christmas as truly Christian. Using a wreath concocted by Germanic peoples doesn't change the motivations for using it in the first place. It will not change the fact that Jesus is widely considered to be a historical figure (while the supernatural nature of His being is debated) and as such people would chose to mark the date He was born.
There is also the origin of the word "Christmas" (being Criste-Maesse, or Mass of Christ) first being used in 1038, St. Boniface cutting down a fir tree to prove to Germanic tribes that it was not a god, the decorating of fir trees with apples to mimic Paradise Trees in the Garden of Eden, the census ordered by Caesar Augustus, stars and the fact that feasts like Saturnalia are not only different from Christmas but no longer exist. This essay says quite a lot, actually.
And so does this:
Merry Christmas.
The Iranian Humbug
Ahmadinejad will deliver an address to counter the Queen's Christmas greetings. His planned Christmas Day message will be to all "bullying powers" in the world. He will even evoke the name of Jesus, the Jew who transformed the world thousands of years ago.
How can someone hate Baby Jesus and Christmas so much that they would try to trump the Queen's attempt at being jolly? This is what happens when no one stands up to a true bully. Ahmadinejad, whose own people cannot heat their homes, could be arrested for reading Western literature, and are jailed and tortured, is a far cry from anything resembling a democratically elected leader. He, along with Mugabe, Kim Jong-Il and Putin, are able to strut around the international stage, make threats, deny atrocities and even stoop to the lowest common denominator by referring to Jesus (whom, I'm sure, Ahmadinejad wouldn't hesitate to torture and kill) because no one will say anything to him.
Why doesn't someone give him the gift of forced removal from Iran, or at least a gift card from Chapter's (he can buy the Bible or Jane Austin)?
And Obama wants to talk to this guy...
How can someone hate Baby Jesus and Christmas so much that they would try to trump the Queen's attempt at being jolly? This is what happens when no one stands up to a true bully. Ahmadinejad, whose own people cannot heat their homes, could be arrested for reading Western literature, and are jailed and tortured, is a far cry from anything resembling a democratically elected leader. He, along with Mugabe, Kim Jong-Il and Putin, are able to strut around the international stage, make threats, deny atrocities and even stoop to the lowest common denominator by referring to Jesus (whom, I'm sure, Ahmadinejad wouldn't hesitate to torture and kill) because no one will say anything to him.
Why doesn't someone give him the gift of forced removal from Iran, or at least a gift card from Chapter's (he can buy the Bible or Jane Austin)?
And Obama wants to talk to this guy...
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Giving the Gift of Bull
Obama's appointed team found no impropriety on Obama's part or anyone associated with him regarding (the now disgraced) Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's attempt to sell the senator's seat. Is Obama so full of himself that he thinks people will believe every word he says or is he the greatest trickster of this century?
William Ayers, whom no one in the media found notorious enough to question or discredit, should answer one who has seen him in action. The unrepentant former terrorist can't dodge his past crimes forever.
William Ayers, whom no one in the media found notorious enough to question or discredit, should answer one who has seen him in action. The unrepentant former terrorist can't dodge his past crimes forever.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
The Fourth Sunday in Advent
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
Luke 2:1-5
Thursday, December 18, 2008
All For Nothing
A controversial Afrocentric school in Toronto has failed to attract the necessary body of students to keep it running. The lack of interest is to blame.
I have to ask why people waste their time on useless ventures that profit others nothing. One fat girl wants to play on a boys' team and when granted to do so, she is hailed a hero for all girls. Yet, no other girls want to play on a boys' team. O victory, where is thy meaning?
The same goes for this proposed school. The era of racial segregation, once deemed as morally repugnant, is being re-introduced by some activists who think that it is the only way shore up sagging grades of black students. At the time of its proposal, the school was maligned by some who felt that separation on racial grounds was not only repulsive but ineffective and hailed by others as a turning point for black education. Despite the brouhaha, the turnout for this proposed school yielded only fifteen interested parties. Quite simply, the parents didn't care.
The cornerstone of any society is the family. If a mother and father raise a child to work hard and nurture his interests, the child will, no doubt, actively pursue proficiency in all that he does. When the child succeeds at something, he will be praised and his self-esteem- the new zenith of the individual- will rise. If the child has parents who care about what goes on at the school (what the teachers are doing, the curriculum, ect.), any problems encountered will be dealt with. A good parent will see which teacher is dedicated and which one was hired for no good reason. A good parent would question the curriculum and approach school board trustees (whose funds depend on parents) with their concerns.
So what happened? If this Afrocentric school was supposed to fix all problems racial and academic, why didn't anyone run, not walk, to enroll?
I suppose some people just didn't care. Any reasons to support the existence of this school became moot due to lack of interest.
I have to ask why people waste their time on useless ventures that profit others nothing. One fat girl wants to play on a boys' team and when granted to do so, she is hailed a hero for all girls. Yet, no other girls want to play on a boys' team. O victory, where is thy meaning?
The same goes for this proposed school. The era of racial segregation, once deemed as morally repugnant, is being re-introduced by some activists who think that it is the only way shore up sagging grades of black students. At the time of its proposal, the school was maligned by some who felt that separation on racial grounds was not only repulsive but ineffective and hailed by others as a turning point for black education. Despite the brouhaha, the turnout for this proposed school yielded only fifteen interested parties. Quite simply, the parents didn't care.
The cornerstone of any society is the family. If a mother and father raise a child to work hard and nurture his interests, the child will, no doubt, actively pursue proficiency in all that he does. When the child succeeds at something, he will be praised and his self-esteem- the new zenith of the individual- will rise. If the child has parents who care about what goes on at the school (what the teachers are doing, the curriculum, ect.), any problems encountered will be dealt with. A good parent will see which teacher is dedicated and which one was hired for no good reason. A good parent would question the curriculum and approach school board trustees (whose funds depend on parents) with their concerns.
So what happened? If this Afrocentric school was supposed to fix all problems racial and academic, why didn't anyone run, not walk, to enroll?
I suppose some people just didn't care. Any reasons to support the existence of this school became moot due to lack of interest.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Third Sunday in Advent
After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized. John also was baptizing at Ae'non near Salim, because there was much water there; and people came and were baptized. For John had not yet been put in prison. Now a discussion arose between John's disciples and a Jew over purifying. And they came to John, and said to him, "Rabbi, he who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you bore witness, here he is, baptizing, and all are going to him." John answered, "No one can receive anything except what is given him from heaven. You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him. He who has the bride is the bridegroom; the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom's voice; therefore this joy of mine is now full. He must increase, but I must decrease."
John 3:22-30
Cowardice
There are cowards who harm school girls in Afghanistan and cowards who shoot at innocent people in Mumbai, but it takes a special kind of coward to burn down a church while children were inside.
I thought in American people were supposed to be free from fear.
I thought in American people were supposed to be free from fear.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
You Be the Judge
No, not about Mr. Incredible vs. the Dino.
Did Obama speak with the now disgraced Senator Blagojevich? This article and this one, as well, say yes. Could this be Obama's Watergate? Maybe.
The "calling in gay" scheme didn't work. Could gay activists be over-estimating their importance? Maybe.
Did Obama speak with the now disgraced Senator Blagojevich? This article and this one, as well, say yes. Could this be Obama's Watergate? Maybe.
The "calling in gay" scheme didn't work. Could gay activists be over-estimating their importance? Maybe.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Emily Dickinson
The Savior must have been
A docile Gentleman—
To come so far so cold a Day
For little Fellowmen—
The Road to Bethlehem
Since He and I were Boys
Was leveled, but for that 'twould be
A rugged Billion Miles—
A docile Gentleman—
To come so far so cold a Day
For little Fellowmen—
The Road to Bethlehem
Since He and I were Boys
Was leveled, but for that 'twould be
A rugged Billion Miles—
The Savior must have been a docile Gentleman (1487)
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Palin On Canada
CTV interviewed Governor Sarah Palin and asked her opinion on a number of issues such as oil, NAFTA and her political future. Please go here.
The Snub
I don't know how true this is, but if it is- great. Sarah Palin has reportedly snubbed Oprah Winfrey. Good. Good, good, good, good, good. Someone has the good sense to stand up to that self-important attention-hog. This just further attests to Sarah Palin's character and makes me admire her more. If Governor Palin did meet with Oprah, I'm sure it would have to do with a book deal or something, not a fear of being sat on a by a hippo, or a Harpo. Write your own jokes about this.
A Whole Bowlful of Crazy
Sometimes I wonder if human beings are the keystone species of the cosmos and below are a few very good reasons why I would doubt that we are.
The anti-Proposition bullies, when not threatening people or shouting out racist epithets, are planning on not showing up for work. "Calling in Gay" is supposed to be the grassroots action that will shake up entire cities. I don't think so. Nothing says to an employer in a shaky economy that someone is a dispensable, easily irritated and unreliable loafer like calling in "gay". It's like saying: "Fire me. I hate getting paid for the three hours of work I actually do."
The childishness will never cease. Anti-Proposition 8 "activists" couldn't persuade voters before the election. Their attempts at persuasion now are invasive, if not tiresome, unoriginal and would be wholly inflammatory if they had intestinal fortitude to cheese off people who would really give them the third degree. As the latter would never happen, all we get is the dregs. Remember when street theatre was entertaining? I don't, either.
No matter how many times someone says it or how many times common sense appeals to the cerebral cortex for sanity, some idiots still believe the utterly ridiculous. Some believe the September 11th attacks were orchestrated by someone other than bin Laden, some people believe in aliens and some people believe that Trig Palin is not Sarah Palin's natural son. Only a lone voice in the liberal media has the courage to say: "Oh give it up, already!" This appalling and outrageously absurd conspiracy theory just smacks of misogyny and complete idiocy.
A corrupt politician. Surprise, surprise.
Everyone wanted Stephane Dion gone and Bob "Rae Days" Rae has refused the baton. It is now up to Michael Ignatieff to helm the sinking Liberal ship, the HMS Leaky Boat. Good luck.*
* (By "luck", I meant riddance.)
Will it ever end?
The anti-Proposition bullies, when not threatening people or shouting out racist epithets, are planning on not showing up for work. "Calling in Gay" is supposed to be the grassroots action that will shake up entire cities. I don't think so. Nothing says to an employer in a shaky economy that someone is a dispensable, easily irritated and unreliable loafer like calling in "gay". It's like saying: "Fire me. I hate getting paid for the three hours of work I actually do."
The childishness will never cease. Anti-Proposition 8 "activists" couldn't persuade voters before the election. Their attempts at persuasion now are invasive, if not tiresome, unoriginal and would be wholly inflammatory if they had intestinal fortitude to cheese off people who would really give them the third degree. As the latter would never happen, all we get is the dregs. Remember when street theatre was entertaining? I don't, either.
No matter how many times someone says it or how many times common sense appeals to the cerebral cortex for sanity, some idiots still believe the utterly ridiculous. Some believe the September 11th attacks were orchestrated by someone other than bin Laden, some people believe in aliens and some people believe that Trig Palin is not Sarah Palin's natural son. Only a lone voice in the liberal media has the courage to say: "Oh give it up, already!" This appalling and outrageously absurd conspiracy theory just smacks of misogyny and complete idiocy.
A corrupt politician. Surprise, surprise.
Everyone wanted Stephane Dion gone and Bob "Rae Days" Rae has refused the baton. It is now up to Michael Ignatieff to helm the sinking Liberal ship, the HMS Leaky Boat. Good luck.*
* (By "luck", I meant riddance.)
Will it ever end?
Sunday, December 07, 2008
The Spud
Lebanese farmer, Khalil Semhat, has grown what is reported to be the largest potato ever.
It's not a potato- it's a monster!
Sure- you could make french fries out of that. Monster french fries!
Seriously, though, here are some important facts about potatoes. Let's not forget National Potato Day.
Also, delicious potato recipes.
It's not a potato- it's a monster!
Sure- you could make french fries out of that. Monster french fries!
Seriously, though, here are some important facts about potatoes. Let's not forget National Potato Day.
Also, delicious potato recipes.
The Meaning of Christmas
Is Christmas about presents and turkey?
Or is about Mr. Incredible fighting Glow-In-the-Dark Dino?
You be the judge.
Or is about Mr. Incredible fighting Glow-In-the-Dark Dino?
You be the judge.
The Second Sunday In Advent
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
(John 1: 1-5)
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Crisis Averted...
...for now.
Prime Minister Harper had Governor-General Michaelle Jean suspend Parliament until late January, thereby stalling the coalition party's attempt to bring down the government.
A power grab is thwarted (even if temporarily) just in time for Christmas.
Prime Minister Harper had Governor-General Michaelle Jean suspend Parliament until late January, thereby stalling the coalition party's attempt to bring down the government.
A power grab is thwarted (even if temporarily) just in time for Christmas.
True Merit
This is what "A for effort" looks like.
Whenever one hears about getting a grade simply because they show up for class, remember those who truly risked everything in pursuit of a dream. That deserves the highest praise.
Whenever one hears about getting a grade simply because they show up for class, remember those who truly risked everything in pursuit of a dream. That deserves the highest praise.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
The First Sunday of Advent
Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee.
For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.
For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.
Isaiah 60:1
Saturday, November 29, 2008
I've Got Mail (sigh)
I hate doing this and I apologise if I upset or annoy anyone with this but someone else has dragged their dirty laundry into my arena and now I have to clean it up.
The story so far: an individual with whom we've (there is more than one) had associations has been less than generous in person and in spirit. Quite frankly, she has been talking behind our backs and lying. Really. She did so on her blog. When approached, she denied it and then ultimately white-washed it (even a personal e-mail was made an object of public scrutiny). I realise it's kind of childish to carry on with this but what choice do I have? If you act out in public (or the fairly public sphere of the web log), then you'd better pony up in public, too.
Here is a sanitised version:
Here is a more "detailed" version, if you'll indulge me:
There are quite few differences.
Somewhere there is a pot remarking what an interesting shade of black the kettle is wearing. This was after she slandered someone on her blog and added a rather ingratiating note on someone else's chiefly because she was afraid of derailing a gravy train. That's right. She was more than happy (this "independent" person) to accept the kindness of others. "Delete this comment"? I screen my comments, yes. I have ever since her friend- a misogynist and a pervert- left a rather unwholesome comment. How do you promote a discussion about this:
Does this sound like an "enlightened" person? Is this how women should be talked about, or treated? Is this any way to discuss any important issue, or even just have a run-of-the-mill conversation? No. This is how someone who is afraid of or hates women speaks about them behind their backs. He sent those very words to me (valiantly hiding behind the moniker "anonymous"). He could claim ignorance or that he truly loves all of "nature's" creatures until he is blue in the face but in the end he was caught. The endless stream of nonsense and filth is too much. What a gentleman. What a human being. Even the friend in question thinks so in an e-mail sent to me (the names are blotted out but could be revealed upon private request):
Gay people have chips on their shoulders? Okay. If someone insists. I won't, however.
Not being a five-year-old, I know that the existence of my blog was made aware of to that guy by the erstwhile acquaintance. I imagine the purpose of that was to bog me down with tedious or alarming comments. Instead of saying she disagreed with me, she sent her friends after me. And all this time I thought it was my charming personality. Whatever. I'm an adult. While I'm sure to expect some sort of cyber-lashing for all this, one should keep in mind: I never got the ball rolling, I never blabbed about it in public and I can account for the lot.
"Unbelievable as your sister"? Which one? They're all pretty unbelievable if you ask me. They are all good at what they do and work pretty darn hard at it. They also don't slander people, let others insult them behind their backs, nor do they publicize every waking moment of their lives. I suppose that is how they can live with themselves.
Anyway, I hope to move on after this. This blog is for discussing a wide variety of things, things that I want to talk about. As the late great William F. Buckley Jr. said: "cancel your own g-d- subscription." Indeed, if my mere presence offends, there are other places to go and spread your fertiliser.
(now onward, hopefully, with more pleasant entries)
The story so far: an individual with whom we've (there is more than one) had associations has been less than generous in person and in spirit. Quite frankly, she has been talking behind our backs and lying. Really. She did so on her blog. When approached, she denied it and then ultimately white-washed it (even a personal e-mail was made an object of public scrutiny). I realise it's kind of childish to carry on with this but what choice do I have? If you act out in public (or the fairly public sphere of the web log), then you'd better pony up in public, too.
Here is a sanitised version:
Osumashi Kinyobe - Now, that's not very nice, (or mature), using your
mother's blog to insult me.And if you read my post, it is most polite and
personable.What "sobs" are you speaking of?What an odd thing to say.
Here is a more "detailed" version, if you'll indulge me:
Osumashi Kinyobe - Now, that's not very nice, (or mature), using your
mother's blog to insult me.If you read my post, it is most polite and
personable.What "sobs" are you speaking of?What an odd thing to say...but then
again, although it's a cliche, I always "consider the source".Now go ahead and
delete this, as is your odd blogging agenda.You are truly as unbelievable as
your sister!
There are quite few differences.
Somewhere there is a pot remarking what an interesting shade of black the kettle is wearing. This was after she slandered someone on her blog and added a rather ingratiating note on someone else's chiefly because she was afraid of derailing a gravy train. That's right. She was more than happy (this "independent" person) to accept the kindness of others. "Delete this comment"? I screen my comments, yes. I have ever since her friend- a misogynist and a pervert- left a rather unwholesome comment. How do you promote a discussion about this:
None of the Bush administration is sexy. Not even Laura Bush. Like, shes
pretty, but you know her p---y tastes like Lysol. Now, I really don't know what
p---y tastes like. Ummmm yuck. Im allergic. If I even have a little itty bitty
taste of p---y, my throat swells up and I die. It says so on my Medical Alert
bracelet. I don't want to give the impression tho that P---y has a pine
aftertaste... But its better than Barbara Bush, that's just straight up
mothballs. That's a mouth full of Bengay, that's what that is.... I'm probably
going to get shot, enjoy it while you can....
Does this sound like an "enlightened" person? Is this how women should be talked about, or treated? Is this any way to discuss any important issue, or even just have a run-of-the-mill conversation? No. This is how someone who is afraid of or hates women speaks about them behind their backs. He sent those very words to me (valiantly hiding behind the moniker "anonymous"). He could claim ignorance or that he truly loves all of "nature's" creatures until he is blue in the face but in the end he was caught. The endless stream of nonsense and filth is too much. What a gentleman. What a human being. Even the friend in question thinks so in an e-mail sent to me (the names are blotted out but could be revealed upon private request):
They're are similarities here that make me believe this "-----" friend of
----'s is your troll. Although he denies it, check out his post
today. I dunno...he usually seems like a nice guy, with just a bit of
a chip on his shoulder, being gay and all.later,----
Gay people have chips on their shoulders? Okay. If someone insists. I won't, however.
Not being a five-year-old, I know that the existence of my blog was made aware of to that guy by the erstwhile acquaintance. I imagine the purpose of that was to bog me down with tedious or alarming comments. Instead of saying she disagreed with me, she sent her friends after me. And all this time I thought it was my charming personality. Whatever. I'm an adult. While I'm sure to expect some sort of cyber-lashing for all this, one should keep in mind: I never got the ball rolling, I never blabbed about it in public and I can account for the lot.
"Unbelievable as your sister"? Which one? They're all pretty unbelievable if you ask me. They are all good at what they do and work pretty darn hard at it. They also don't slander people, let others insult them behind their backs, nor do they publicize every waking moment of their lives. I suppose that is how they can live with themselves.
Anyway, I hope to move on after this. This blog is for discussing a wide variety of things, things that I want to talk about. As the late great William F. Buckley Jr. said: "cancel your own g-d- subscription." Indeed, if my mere presence offends, there are other places to go and spread your fertiliser.
(now onward, hopefully, with more pleasant entries)
In the News
The blame game is in progress as Mumbai recovers from its three day siege which has left nearly 200 people dead (reports say most were Indian nationals which would suggest that Hindus sufficed when terrorists could not kill Americans, Britons or Jews), several injured, at least one orphaned child, a murdered Canadian doctor and an economic capital at a standstill. India blames Pakistan, Pakistan denies it, and two terrorists may have had British passports. Here is a run-down (I'm sure one of many).
This blog here has a rather disgusting if not eye-opening post on where our food comes from. Take a look.
A rather interesting letter about a largely ignored country.
What could happen if the opposition parties move to dissolve the government. This would be over the money they take from us to maintain their brittle yet annoying status. The parties (all of them) labour under the illusion that their presence is needed to stabilise a democracy which does not have proportional representation, nor is it a republic.
Splitting hairs with people who are presumably adults and therefore capable of hearing out an argument. Nothing beats university life.
This blog here has a rather disgusting if not eye-opening post on where our food comes from. Take a look.
A rather interesting letter about a largely ignored country.
What could happen if the opposition parties move to dissolve the government. This would be over the money they take from us to maintain their brittle yet annoying status. The parties (all of them) labour under the illusion that their presence is needed to stabilise a democracy which does not have proportional representation, nor is it a republic.
Splitting hairs with people who are presumably adults and therefore capable of hearing out an argument. Nothing beats university life.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
In the Waning Hours
As of this writing, security forces are still trying to secure the city of Mumbai after a series of co-ordinated and bloody acts of terrorism. The terrorists were initially reported to have been aiming for American and British citizens. The Jewish centre of Mumbai is being stormed.
A map of the recent attacks.
In other news, Finance Minister Flaherty hopes to avoid a deficit but there are no promises. What is hoped is that not one penny of taxpayer's money will line the coffers of any political party in the country. Let each party be wholly financed by their supporters. Surely voter confidence in each party's policies is steady, even high. They don't need any public money whatsoever.
I can't believe I missed this. The make-believe politicians at Carleton University are furiously backtracking after their atrocious comments regarding race, gender and cystic fibrosis. I suppose if one can't accessorize with ribbons, then the disease is not worth raising funds for.
The case of a convicted murderer bringing his new wife into Canada is a stunning one. Why a man who killed his sister-in-law by burning her to death was released is puzzling, if not outright appalling. It is equally puzzling- and alarming- to hear that "sister-in-law" is far more nebulous a connection than "relative". Because the offense he committed involved his sister-in-law and not a relative, the man is allowed to bring over his wife. How does this fare for would-be citizens who have been separated from loved ones because of some bureaucratic semantic nonsense? I could imagine "relative" is neutral enough to allow a vocal and often annoying minority to "marry" but to allow this? It is no wonder people distrust their elected officials and even more so hate filling out forms.
A map of the recent attacks.
In other news, Finance Minister Flaherty hopes to avoid a deficit but there are no promises. What is hoped is that not one penny of taxpayer's money will line the coffers of any political party in the country. Let each party be wholly financed by their supporters. Surely voter confidence in each party's policies is steady, even high. They don't need any public money whatsoever.
I can't believe I missed this. The make-believe politicians at Carleton University are furiously backtracking after their atrocious comments regarding race, gender and cystic fibrosis. I suppose if one can't accessorize with ribbons, then the disease is not worth raising funds for.
The case of a convicted murderer bringing his new wife into Canada is a stunning one. Why a man who killed his sister-in-law by burning her to death was released is puzzling, if not outright appalling. It is equally puzzling- and alarming- to hear that "sister-in-law" is far more nebulous a connection than "relative". Because the offense he committed involved his sister-in-law and not a relative, the man is allowed to bring over his wife. How does this fare for would-be citizens who have been separated from loved ones because of some bureaucratic semantic nonsense? I could imagine "relative" is neutral enough to allow a vocal and often annoying minority to "marry" but to allow this? It is no wonder people distrust their elected officials and even more so hate filling out forms.
The Land of the Morning Calm
Only in South Korea can the *Christmas season kick off with cuteness and unbridled materialism.
*(Actually, Advent, which precedes Christmas, starts this Sunday, November 3oth, and ends at midnight, December 25th. The Christmas season does have roughly twelve days, with a couple week-ends tucked in, and ends on the Feast of the Epiphany, January 6th or 7th.)
If this article is to be believed, it is possible to buy two Canadas for the price of one Korea. The value of land in Korea was 2.3 times higher than Canada's land value which increased only slightly from 0.9 times the GDP to 1.1 times the GDP in 2007. Some may think that is a deal. Others may be shuddering at the thought of poutine jjigae.
South Korean activists will continue sending leaflets to North Korea despite the current government's annoyance at such actions. Though I would hardly call it "propaganda", the activists are doing far more than the South Korean and American government in terms of reaching out to the media and food-starved masses. The "Sunshine Policy" and the removal of North Korea from a terrorist-sponsorship list have done very little. It remains to be seen what the upcoming US administration intends on doing about North Korea but I am not hopeful.
Happy Thanksgiving Day!
The Koreans and Canadians have had their thanksgiving holidays. Now the Americans.
Happy Thanksgiving Day!
Monday, November 24, 2008
Discrimination or Not?
The passage of Proposition 8, which held that marriage was between a man and a woman and would not be valid for homosexual partners, has become- through no fault of its own- a contentious issue for one of the most vocal minorities in the US. Those who voted for the measure were largely racial minorities. Those believing that with the election of Obama, "change" would dramatically sweep the land and make everything better were rudely surprised by the nastiness of a minority that couldn't take failure as a reality. Now, there is some extremist and unfounded mutterings that racial minorities will suffer because of this.
Doubtful.
From the article:
Even proponents doubt this. That kind of thinking is scare-mongering.
To backtrack a bit:
Why would the election of a partially black president whose soft-serve approach to tyranny, hard-core socialism and dubious associations with unrepentant terrorists magically fix everything? Is that a realistic or romantic expectation?
There is no state-sanctioned racism but there are instances of bigotry everyday. It is irrational and wrong to judge a person solely on their skin colour. Why disappointed protesters would refer to black voters as "n---ers" is beyond me. Perhaps the new closet to emerge from is the misanthrope one. As long as one tows the party line, you will be safe from slurs and attacks. If you do or say something contrary to that, then watch out!
As for the subject of marriage itself, should there be redefinition? To re-define something would eliminate its uniqueness and subject it to generality. It would no longer be for one purpose or sacred or special. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. It was consecrated by whatever beliefs were held in the community and bound by law and custom. Marriage was a binding factor in society and even (don't laugh) the ecosystem. Imagine the carbon footprint from several households as opposed to one. Imagine the gene pool with several related spouses! Marriage stabilised families, beliefs, language groups and ultimately countries. Two intelligent adults- a man and a woman- with separate yet equally important roles- passed on values and other qualities for a new generation to carry on, even transport to another area. To put it colloquially, it was a gift that kept on giving.
Even if lawmakers could re-define marriage, would that make it less in the minds of the average citizen? There are still people alive to remember the "nuclear family". I doubt that would change no matter how decrepit public mores become.
If marriage is for like-minded adults, should it be permitted for trend-followers? Homosexuals are a minority- albeit a vocal one- in any country. There is no credible evidence to suggest their behaviour is inherent (unlike skin colour) or you wouldn't have former homosexuals. Not everyone in the gay community wants marriage. This would suggest that the pull for marriage is an attempt to curry favour or acceptance from the majority that has felt one way or another it no longer needs the binding commitment or sacrament (what have you) of marriage. "Let them be miserable!" some say. That is hardly a resounding opinion of a union that serves a community. "Love" is also a meaningless word thrown around in this debate. How many abusive boyfriends or neglectful mothers declare they love their girlfriends or children? That word doesn't help them much. Marriage is also not a right. Not everyone can- or should- marry. Let's not forget that homosexuals could marry, just not each other. It's a hairline difference, yes, but still valid in terms of semantics.
In the broader picture, Proposition 8 passed because a bulk of people weren't swayed by the con side. They saw something others did not see. Whether the "cons" like it or not, democracy worked. Brow-beating and bullying, even desperate legal pleas, can only go so far.
Post-Script: if you want to reply to this, please do, but nothing like: "go (expletive to the power of ten)" or "You're racist because you have the audacity to question a president whose approach to would-be Israel destroyers is weak!" Such replies will only appear in the "That Was the Year It Was" gag reel.
Doubtful.
From the article:
It is unlikely that relatively liberal California would approve
restrictions on racial and religious minorities, especially ones that clash with
the protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, Cruz and others
say.
"We are past that as a realistic matter. We just elected an
African-American president, for Christ's sake," said University of California,
Berkeley, law professor Jesse Choper, who also filed on behalf of gay advocates
in the original gay marriage case.
Even proponents doubt this. That kind of thinking is scare-mongering.
To backtrack a bit:
Why would the election of a partially black president whose soft-serve approach to tyranny, hard-core socialism and dubious associations with unrepentant terrorists magically fix everything? Is that a realistic or romantic expectation?
There is no state-sanctioned racism but there are instances of bigotry everyday. It is irrational and wrong to judge a person solely on their skin colour. Why disappointed protesters would refer to black voters as "n---ers" is beyond me. Perhaps the new closet to emerge from is the misanthrope one. As long as one tows the party line, you will be safe from slurs and attacks. If you do or say something contrary to that, then watch out!
As for the subject of marriage itself, should there be redefinition? To re-define something would eliminate its uniqueness and subject it to generality. It would no longer be for one purpose or sacred or special. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. It was consecrated by whatever beliefs were held in the community and bound by law and custom. Marriage was a binding factor in society and even (don't laugh) the ecosystem. Imagine the carbon footprint from several households as opposed to one. Imagine the gene pool with several related spouses! Marriage stabilised families, beliefs, language groups and ultimately countries. Two intelligent adults- a man and a woman- with separate yet equally important roles- passed on values and other qualities for a new generation to carry on, even transport to another area. To put it colloquially, it was a gift that kept on giving.
Even if lawmakers could re-define marriage, would that make it less in the minds of the average citizen? There are still people alive to remember the "nuclear family". I doubt that would change no matter how decrepit public mores become.
If marriage is for like-minded adults, should it be permitted for trend-followers? Homosexuals are a minority- albeit a vocal one- in any country. There is no credible evidence to suggest their behaviour is inherent (unlike skin colour) or you wouldn't have former homosexuals. Not everyone in the gay community wants marriage. This would suggest that the pull for marriage is an attempt to curry favour or acceptance from the majority that has felt one way or another it no longer needs the binding commitment or sacrament (what have you) of marriage. "Let them be miserable!" some say. That is hardly a resounding opinion of a union that serves a community. "Love" is also a meaningless word thrown around in this debate. How many abusive boyfriends or neglectful mothers declare they love their girlfriends or children? That word doesn't help them much. Marriage is also not a right. Not everyone can- or should- marry. Let's not forget that homosexuals could marry, just not each other. It's a hairline difference, yes, but still valid in terms of semantics.
In the broader picture, Proposition 8 passed because a bulk of people weren't swayed by the con side. They saw something others did not see. Whether the "cons" like it or not, democracy worked. Brow-beating and bullying, even desperate legal pleas, can only go so far.
Post-Script: if you want to reply to this, please do, but nothing like: "go (expletive to the power of ten)" or "You're racist because you have the audacity to question a president whose approach to would-be Israel destroyers is weak!" Such replies will only appear in the "That Was the Year It Was" gag reel.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Dead But Won't Lie Down
Have you seen "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"? Sure you have. There are several iconic and completely funny parts, namely King Arthur's fight with the seemingly invincible Black Knight. No matter how many times King Arthur tries to pass (even after cutting off a limb), the Black Knight steadfastly refuses to let him be. In the end, the Black Knight is rendered completely useless but tries to save face by calling the match "a draw". It's funny and it makes you think.It makes me think of all the times someone has tried to explain how obstinate, unfeeling, thoughtless or just plain mean someone else has been yet won't admit it. I don't think it's quite pride that would get in the way (although I wouldn't rule it out) but the complete inability to accept the fragility of their situation. They are standing on lost ground and not realising it. They may go on about how they never said something or that if they did say it they never meant it. Even if sat next to and calmly spoken to, nothing gets across. It only gets worse when they drag other equally clueless people into the fray. You're watching a sinking ship of fools trying to plug a couch-sized hole with a one centimetre blob of putty and wondering why they aren't headed for the life boats.
One has to continue forward, however, because there is a holy grail to find. The Black Knight certainly won't get in your way.
Just some thoughts.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
200
I wondered what I should do for my two hundredth post but it appears nature has done that for me.
With loitering step and quiet eye,
Beneath the low November sky,
I wandered in the woods, and found
A clearing where the broken ground
Was scattered with black stumps and briers,
And the old wreck of forest fires.
(“In November”, Archibald Lampman)
One must have a mind of winter
To regard the frost and boughs
Of the pine-trees crusted with snow;
And have been cold a long time
To behold the junipers shagged with ice,
The spruces rough in the distant glitter
Of the January sun; and not to think
Of any misery in the sound of the wind,
In the sound of a few leaves,
Which is the sound of the land
Full of the same wind
That is blowing in the same bare place
For the listener, who listens in the snow,
And, nothing himself, beholds
Nothing that is not there and the nothing that is.
(“The Snow Man”, Wallace Stevens)
Whose woods these are I think I know.
His house is in the village though;
He will not see me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow.
(“Stopping By the Woods On a Snowy Evening”, Robert Frost)
Never we know but in sleet and in snow,
The place where the great fires are,
That the midst of the earth is a raging mirth,
And the heart of the earth a star.
(“A Child of the Snows”, G.K. Chesterton)
Thursday, November 13, 2008
In the Early Hours
Two Afghan girls were blinded by acid while on their way to school. This sort of thing is not atypical where the Taliban still has control. Academic empowerment is, apparently, "a sin". Where is the outrage from feminists and human-rights activists? While I am sure there are those who care, the mainstream will ignore things like this. I cannot think why.
Also, this is very cool.
Also, this is very cool.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Remember
I know that I shall meet my fate
Somewhere among the clouds above;
Those that I fight I do not hate,
Those that I guard I do not love;
My county is Kiltartan Cross,
My countrymen Kiltartan's poor,
No likely end could bring them loss
Or leave them happier than before.
Nor law, nor duty bade me fight,
Nor public men, nor cheering crowds,
A lonely impulse of delight
Drove to this tumult in the clouds;
I balanced all, brought all to mind,
The years to come seemed waste of breath,
A waste of breath the years behind
In balance with this life, this death.
"An Irish Airman Foresees His Death", William Butler Yeats
Monday, November 10, 2008
I've Got Mail
Anonymous has challenged me to post his/her entire letter. Here it is, uncensored and unabridged:
If Anonymous would care to read this over to see if I have left anything out, then one can be satisfied in knowing that nothing has been left out for any reason.
Now if I may retort:
I assume the "joke" remark was meant to hurt my feelings. It has not. While I don't consider myself the cornerstone of civilisation, I do like blogging on various topics. I have something to say and I would like to say it. That is why I bother. If my blog bores or offends, one is welcome to ignore it.
As for the comments I post, I want to promote discussion. I am sure you would not speak with someone who shouts profanity at you or fails to give a reasonable reply. Such is the case with me. The people who type rather vile messages aren't interested in discussion. Rather, all they have is a mixture of anger and stupidity (an opinion I will not retract). If I ask a question about North Korea or trade agreements, the last thing I want to hear is "go f--- yourself". That kind of rudeness doesn't belong on my blog. Sure, I may re-print such comments with the cuss words blanked out but it is only to show how some people are incapable of being civil. If someone agrees with me, so be it. If you look around, there are people who've disagreed with me. As long as they were polite, I was glad to reply.
No one has given me an airtight counter-argument to any of my posts. When they do (and are civil about it), it will be here for everyone to see. This isn't the Daily Kos or the New York Times.
Left-wing? Where did that come from?
Your entire blog is a complete joke. Why do you even bother?
When people comment on your blog, you post only those comments that either suit your agenda or that you feel you can easily discredit.
You never post any of the comments of substance that show rational points of view which disagree with your extreme left-wing rants.
You're constantly telling commentors to "do their research" and "check the facts", and yet when they do and post a rational argument, you choose not to post these comments.
It's ridiculous that only people who agree with you can comment on your blog.
I wonder what your agreeeable readers would think of your blog if they knew the truth...that you censor rational comments that contain no profanity, only facts.
Like I said, your blog is a joke.
Be honest, be real, stop censoring comments that should be posted.
Why don't you shock me and post this comment in its entirety?
If Anonymous would care to read this over to see if I have left anything out, then one can be satisfied in knowing that nothing has been left out for any reason.
Now if I may retort:
I assume the "joke" remark was meant to hurt my feelings. It has not. While I don't consider myself the cornerstone of civilisation, I do like blogging on various topics. I have something to say and I would like to say it. That is why I bother. If my blog bores or offends, one is welcome to ignore it.
As for the comments I post, I want to promote discussion. I am sure you would not speak with someone who shouts profanity at you or fails to give a reasonable reply. Such is the case with me. The people who type rather vile messages aren't interested in discussion. Rather, all they have is a mixture of anger and stupidity (an opinion I will not retract). If I ask a question about North Korea or trade agreements, the last thing I want to hear is "go f--- yourself". That kind of rudeness doesn't belong on my blog. Sure, I may re-print such comments with the cuss words blanked out but it is only to show how some people are incapable of being civil. If someone agrees with me, so be it. If you look around, there are people who've disagreed with me. As long as they were polite, I was glad to reply.
No one has given me an airtight counter-argument to any of my posts. When they do (and are civil about it), it will be here for everyone to see. This isn't the Daily Kos or the New York Times.
Left-wing? Where did that come from?
Friday, November 07, 2008
For Your Perusal
I have permission to post this piece about the president-elect everyone can't stop singing about (yet no one can tell me why). It is a well-researched and thoughtful piece. Read it and see.
Here is a bit of it:
Read it and tell me what you think. Please, don't send me a message screaming racism or how you are a closet woman-hater because I can promise you this: I will post your nasty screed everywhere I can until I get an intelligent answer from you. I welcome discussion. I really do, even if I don't agree with you.
Just read it.
Here is a bit of it:
Among his promises was one to cut taxes for the American middle class.
Barak Obama is buying the presidency. What's the cost? $500 per American. Given to non-tax payers. Paid for by hard working men and women. How many people would honestly say no to a man who shouted "Vote for me, and I'll give you $500." $500 that wasn't earned. At least, not by the intended recipients.
"Sharing the wealth" is nothing more than a euphemism for "wealth redistribution." What justification for this is there? Is it charity? Charity is voluntary. It is not a tax that the government can enforce. It certainly isn't voluntary when you target a particular group, especially when many CEOs think Mr.Obama will bankrupt the country.
Is this a government policy? Definitely. Is it welfare? Not officially, but for all intents and purposes, it is. It is a would be policy by a would be government, to take money that wasn't earned, from those who worked long and hard, and give it to someone who does nothing, for no reason. This ideal of paying everyone whether they work or not is another form of wealth distribution we all know, as socialism. Of course, communism being a more common form of socialism that we should recognise it as. This is not a scare tactic used by Obama's opponents. This is history tested fact.
Contrary to the warm fuzzy feelings we (or someone you know) may
have about socialism, here in our free countries, it is not an answer to poverty
and class division. Socialism is the cause of many ills in countries around the
world, as it tramples on our rights and freedoms. It diminishes our ability to
acquire wealth, property and ultimately, security.
Read it and tell me what you think. Please, don't send me a message screaming racism or how you are a closet woman-hater because I can promise you this: I will post your nasty screed everywhere I can until I get an intelligent answer from you. I welcome discussion. I really do, even if I don't agree with you.
Just read it.
Coming Out of the Woodwork
After Iranian president Ahmadinejad congratulated Obama on his victory, North Korea, too, has expressed willingness to meet with the president-elect.
First, this comes as no surprise given Obama's previous declarations. North Korea may be seeking appeasement and they just might get it.
Secondly, who knows who is running Chinese and Russian-backed North Korea. Obama may meet with military officials or Kim Jong-Il's second-in-command (even that, I think, is in play).
Thirdly, North Korea, who has time and again betrayed their neighbour to the south, will no doubt expect something and offer nothing in return. They have a history of betrayal, deceit and violence, none of which they were ever held accountable for.
This is yet another test for the president-elect, one I doubt will have positive results.
First, this comes as no surprise given Obama's previous declarations. North Korea may be seeking appeasement and they just might get it.
Secondly, who knows who is running Chinese and Russian-backed North Korea. Obama may meet with military officials or Kim Jong-Il's second-in-command (even that, I think, is in play).
Thirdly, North Korea, who has time and again betrayed their neighbour to the south, will no doubt expect something and offer nothing in return. They have a history of betrayal, deceit and violence, none of which they were ever held accountable for.
This is yet another test for the president-elect, one I doubt will have positive results.
Even More Mail
Brave anonymous people keep sending me messages, even ones with things that can't be printed for community standard reasons.
Anonymous #1: writes:
On the contrary, Anonymous #1. People do care what I think or they wouldn't send me some rather peculiar messages. I don't know what you think about the possible re-negotiating of trade agreements between the US and Canada but when you do have an opinion, let me know. So far, all I can see is that you took the time to expose your misogyny. You actually took the time to send this message to me. Think about it.
Anonymous #2:
Are you referring to the poster who said 'yay for abortions'? I think it's just a matter of semantics. It could have been written better, for sure.
Anonymous #1: writes:
No one cares what you think, look at the feedback you get. Give up, go
get ***** or something.
On the contrary, Anonymous #1. People do care what I think or they wouldn't send me some rather peculiar messages. I don't know what you think about the possible re-negotiating of trade agreements between the US and Canada but when you do have an opinion, let me know. So far, all I can see is that you took the time to expose your misogyny. You actually took the time to send this message to me. Think about it.
Anonymous #2:
RACIST!
Are you referring to the poster who said 'yay for abortions'? I think it's just a matter of semantics. It could have been written better, for sure.
Not Good For Canada?
I believe I mentioned this but no one listened.
Whether Canadians (who don't really understand Americans or their politics, and vise-versa) believe it or not, a Republican president encourages trade whereas a Democrat president tends to be more protectionist. This does not bode well for border states who depend on one another.
Whether Canadians (who don't really understand Americans or their politics, and vise-versa) believe it or not, a Republican president encourages trade whereas a Democrat president tends to be more protectionist. This does not bode well for border states who depend on one another.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
I've Got More Mail
Wow. Oppose Obama and you become famous! I might even have my own star on the Walk of Fame one day.
And for all those who think profane language or even threats bother me- give it up. It's just sad. I mean, really. Am I supposed to be shocked or something? I still laugh at you.
Anyway, more stuff:
Rebecca says:
Explain how. Seriously. Write back and outline every little detail to me. The only thing I can gather is that I oppose a socialist with no experience or conscience who just happens to look black. If it makes you feel better, I don't care for Joe Biden, either.
Anonymous says:
That's it so far.
And for all those who think profane language or even threats bother me- give it up. It's just sad. I mean, really. Am I supposed to be shocked or something? I still laugh at you.
Anyway, more stuff:
Rebecca says:
I agree with Anonymous #1. You do sound like a right winged crazy racist to
me!! =S
Explain how. Seriously. Write back and outline every little detail to me. The only thing I can gather is that I oppose a socialist with no experience or conscience who just happens to look black. If it makes you feel better, I don't care for Joe Biden, either.
Anonymous says:
Wow Lady. You are crazy!Is that like a good crazy, or seeing things crazy? Again, please be clear.
That's it so far.
I've Got Mail!
I love when I get mail. I get to expose really ignorant things people say because they can't absorb different opinions or deal with facts. I could waste my time arguing these ridiculous bits of fiction but time is always of the essence. I will not censor these letters, save some nasty choice words. What you see here is what you get.
Anonymous #1:
It must be racist to question the character and qualifications of the leader of the free world. Perhaps Anonymous #1 should visit Michelle Malkin's site and see how some rather ignorant people treat her simply because her parents are Filipino and she refuses to tow a line of victimhood and entitlement.
Anonymous #2:
Anonymous #1:
It sounds to me like you hate African Americans... Anyone else agree that you
are a RACIST?
It must be racist to question the character and qualifications of the leader of the free world. Perhaps Anonymous #1 should visit Michelle Malkin's site and see how some rather ignorant people treat her simply because her parents are Filipino and she refuses to tow a line of victimhood and entitlement.
Anonymous #2:
You are f------ retarded. First off, Obama doesnt do Christmas OR Birthday
presents - this isnt because he doesnt believe in either, its to "teach the
girls limits" as is really quoted. AND the girls DO get presents - because the
daughter is quoted by saying "Malia says, I know there is a Santa because
there's no way you'd buy me all that stuff."So get your facts straight first -
you stupid dirty c---. Looks like you need to get laid, or a husband or dog or
something. Why do you write a blog anyways? No one comments on your bull----. I f------ wish your mom believed in abortion, there would be one less stupid
person on this Earth.
HURRAY FOR ABORTIONS!!! ABORTIONS FOR ALL WHO WANT THEM!!! YAYYYYY!!!Wow. Anonymous #2 has so much to say. Where do I start? Why do I write this blog? I do it because I believe in free speech and expression. I have something to say and I would like to say it. I also believe in laughing at people like you, Anonymous #2. The fact that you took the time to misspell words and shout out insults is laughable. You could have ignored this post, or the blog entirely. You could have countered my arguments with something airtight and plausible. Instead, you showed me- and the world- your complete ignorance and malice.
The preceding is the crux of liberalism. Ignorance, malice, fear, anger and an undeserved sense of entitlement.
Apparently, I'm the one with the problem.
An Answer To "The End"
Anonymous doesn't think Obama's presidency will be marked by anything nefarious. I will re-print the letter and dissect piece by ill-informed piece.
Yes, those are strong words and I meant everyone of them because they are true. I may be emphatic at times but I do not print things that aren't supported.
Obama is radically pro-abortion, not pro-choice. A dead baby is still a dead baby, an offense to whichever god you claim to adhere to. Obama has voted against keeping aborted babies born alive from getting medical care (remember- that once out of the womb, a baby is legally a person, therefore making it infanticide). That is pretty much the only thing he has done consistently during his tenure as senator. Should I have compassion for a man who would allow an act so monstrous? That doesn't strike me as Christian, or any other religion that holds human life so dear. Let's not forget how he said he would hate to have his daughters "punished with a baby". Punished? Babies are punishment? Wow. What a human being.
Don't tell me how to live my life. I know what I must do and right now it is to continually point out how Obama is an enormous mistake given that he has no regard for human life or the common good. If this "hurts" people, then they had better acquire a thicker skin. Legitimate criticism is what we have to balance the actions of men.
Anonymous, the facts are out there. Research them. See for yourself if Obama is worthy of so "ungodly" a tongue lashing. If he proves to be an incapable leader- which I believe he is- then that would be the least of his worries.
Really? You really think so? Christmas hating, infanticide supporting,
tyant coddling liar... Those are very very strong words, and how dare you use
your words as weapons.
Yes, those are strong words and I meant everyone of them because they are true. I may be emphatic at times but I do not print things that aren't supported.
Just because someone doesn't celebrate Christmas, doesn't mean theyA lot of cultures do not celebrate Christmas and those who observe it often do so without any understanding of what Christmas truly means. I was referring to Obama's unwillingness to give his daughters Christmas and birthday presents. Personally, I can't back a guy who would do that. He always wavered between Islam and Christianity- whichever one suited him at the time- but somewhere in between he should have found some time to buy a present for his kids. I shouldn't be surprised seeing as his aunt lives illegally in a housing project in Boston, his half-brother lives in a shack and Obama the grand communicator, gives one percent of his earnings to charity. God does teach us to love one another, not ignore their hypocrisy (remember the widow's mite?).
hate it. It just means their religious views are different than those of
Christanity, and thats ok, because God teaches us to love one another, even
through our faults.
Infanticide supporting. Wow, again, very strong words. Just because he is
prochoice, and will allow a woman control of her body, does not mean that he is
a dirty baby killer. Shame on you my dear, as a Christian you should show
compassion, you are not God, when its his time he will not answer to you for his
crimes against humanity.
Obama is radically pro-abortion, not pro-choice. A dead baby is still a dead baby, an offense to whichever god you claim to adhere to. Obama has voted against keeping aborted babies born alive from getting medical care (remember- that once out of the womb, a baby is legally a person, therefore making it infanticide). That is pretty much the only thing he has done consistently during his tenure as senator. Should I have compassion for a man who would allow an act so monstrous? That doesn't strike me as Christian, or any other religion that holds human life so dear. Let's not forget how he said he would hate to have his daughters "punished with a baby". Punished? Babies are punishment? Wow. What a human being.
Yes, Obama one day will answer to God but right now he answers to the American people. As a Christian, I answer for my soul and I am responsible for those around me to some extent. Should I teach children it is okay to smoke? Should I ignore a co-worker who steals from the company? While everyone has free will, that does not mean I ignore goings-on. I think your mentioning Christ is only a way to shield Obama from legitimate criticism, which everyone has every right to offer. People often invoke the Name of Christ when they have nowhere to go. It's sad that Jesus must be used in such a way but that is what happens when facts go out the window. If Obama does something evil, we should not forget it. I reply to your weak-willed shills: get behind me, Satan.He will answer to God, and you are not he. It's Gods commandment that
you should not judge others, its not your place. Your place is to love, and
honour. You are not on this earth to win souls for your savour Jesus Christ, you
are here to live your life as a good example for others, so others will walk in
your foot steps, so make your life a shining example of the love that is
Christanity.
We will have to see what the next 4years brings. You cannot predict, like a
psychic that the US will face economic and political depression. So my dear,
live your life in good example of how your Creator and Savour would want you to
live it. Remember that being the Judge is Gods job, not yours nor mine. Also
remember that your words can be harmful and hurtful weapons. They hurt people.
Please don't hurt people.
Don't tell me how to live my life. I know what I must do and right now it is to continually point out how Obama is an enormous mistake given that he has no regard for human life or the common good. If this "hurts" people, then they had better acquire a thicker skin. Legitimate criticism is what we have to balance the actions of men.
Anonymous, the facts are out there. Research them. See for yourself if Obama is worthy of so "ungodly" a tongue lashing. If he proves to be an incapable leader- which I believe he is- then that would be the least of his worries.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Russia's Renewed Aggression
Russia is deploying short-range missiles near Poland in an effort- no doubt- to counteract Bush's plans to set up an anti-missile defense system. One of the first challenges of the new president (the same one who waited while Russia attacked Georgia) is to see how long it will take him to be a Neville Chamberlain.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
The End
Who would have thought that the Americans would have been duped into voting for a Christmas-hating, infanticide-supporting, tyrant-coddling liar?
Who would have guessed?
Get ready for four years of economic and political depression. We deserve it for buying into his- and others like him- crap.
Who would have guessed?
Get ready for four years of economic and political depression. We deserve it for buying into his- and others like him- crap.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Signs of Our Times
Do you watch Mad Men? Sure you don't. It's a well-written drama with complex characters and intriguing plots based in an environment where illusion meets disappointment. It's a great little show, really.
Anyway, while surfing around, I came across these comments on the second season finale. They concern not only the characters on the program but the posters themselves:
These comments- at least to me- serve as a stark reminder of the selfishness, impracticality, materialism, hopelessness and complete lack of feeling for God or man that runs in the fabric of the Western world. Those who have the guts to counter the posters who air their dirty laundry on a public board get drowned out by the transparent need for someone to accept an act the roots of which are trapped in selfishness. Why any of this was brought up, I don't know. I thought people were just talking about a TV show, not their personal lives and why they are train wrecks.
Just my thoughts.
Anyway, while surfing around, I came across these comments on the second season finale. They concern not only the characters on the program but the posters themselves:
Babies are tragedies when they're unwanted. They aren't blessings, they're
burdens. A baby is actually kind of icky, without the love to make it a
"miracle." They drool constantly, they wallow in their own waste, you have to
change their diapers and they wet the bed...people would not keep a pet that
required as much care or that was as gross as a human infant. And when every
time you look at your child you're looking at the reason you're not a model
doing the NY-London-Paris circuit, you're going to hate that child. Especially
if that child is also the reason you're stuck in a marriage with a guy you
pretty much think is a pig.
But if God is so all-powerful, why doesn't he just fix the damn
road?
Because he enjoys watching people slide into the ditch? Because it's boring
out there in immortal omniscience land, and watching people slide into the ditch
is about the only fun he has? Dunno.
Though probably not as upsetting as being dead. Or having no choice
over your own future. Abortion comes with terrible side effects for most women,
regardless how they feel about it at the time. Depression, anxiety, PTSD, even
guilt, to name a few (I've been and have worked with abortion survivors for
years). Betty didn't go through with it - only thought about it - which strikes
me as completely normal for her situation. She'll be better off in the long run,
and the child will certainly be better off, even if the family completely
disintegrates. At least s/he will have an opportunity to make his/her own
choices, and Betty (considering her character) will be spared decades of
suffering.
That second comment strikes me as a very large generalization about both
the outcomes of abortion and Betty. I've had an abortion before and I've known
other women who had an abortion before and most of us haven't suffered greatly
for it. I think that how women deal with the aftermath of having an abortion
really hinges on how they view abortion beforehand. If they view it as a woman's
choice, they're likely to make peace with themselves afterward. But if they're
in an environment where they're considered evil/terrible/selfish for not having
a child, of course they'll suffer more. (And on that note, I have to admit I
admire Betty for being in that second environment and still deciding that she's
going to press for an abortion, and even try and induce one by herself if
necessary. There's a lot of talk about her being a passive person on other
boards but she really has a set of clangers that could ring like steel.)
In any case, I hardly ever think about my abortion now unless it comes up
and when it does, I'm glad I had the choice to get a safe, legal, easily
available abortion that Betty and a lot of other women (Peggy, anyone?) didn't
have. My life would have been a lot harder right now if I had had a child as a
teenager, just as Betty's life will likely be a lot more anxious now that she's
having a child with a husband who's proven that he's more than capable of
abandoning her and her children without any warning. Children, especially
infants, are a real strain on a marriage.
These comments- at least to me- serve as a stark reminder of the selfishness, impracticality, materialism, hopelessness and complete lack of feeling for God or man that runs in the fabric of the Western world. Those who have the guts to counter the posters who air their dirty laundry on a public board get drowned out by the transparent need for someone to accept an act the roots of which are trapped in selfishness. Why any of this was brought up, I don't know. I thought people were just talking about a TV show, not their personal lives and why they are train wrecks.
Just my thoughts.
Reunification?
A well-known yet often undiscussed fact of North Korean life is how political prisoners are treated. North Korean defectors talk about the abuses they suffered while in prison camps- executions, beatings, torture. There are things too horrible to even discuss. Nevertheless, these things are facts of life for North Koreans and will most likely remain so until some things are resolved.
One- South Korea must decide if it truly wants to be reunited with North Korea. My questions to South Koreans about this matter were always ambiguous. The older generations want a united Korea and that is the default answer to any questions about reunification. However, would a reunited Korea happen? Since the end of the Second World War and the Korean War, North and South Korea have been divided militarily and perhaps culturally and socially. Would a blended Korea even be possible?
Secondly, how can China and Russia be removed from the equation? China and Russia aided North Korea during the war and stand as impediments to reunification now. Any conflict on the Korean Peninsula would be between China and the US. I've never believed the US has ever been bad for either Korea as the US has never sent unarmed men in waves toward their own deaths, nor have they withheld vital support to a country it really has no vested interest in supporting. Russia and China, on the other hand, have aided Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il in maintaining their grip on North Korea. The consequences for the people have been dire, to say the least.
Thirdly, would the rest of world assist North Korea in its adjustment to the free world, in whatever state it is in? Such a proposition is costly, never mind awkward.
I cannot answer any of these questions now. The crisis on the Korean Peninsula has been ongoing and it is doubtful it will change in the next year.
One- South Korea must decide if it truly wants to be reunited with North Korea. My questions to South Koreans about this matter were always ambiguous. The older generations want a united Korea and that is the default answer to any questions about reunification. However, would a reunited Korea happen? Since the end of the Second World War and the Korean War, North and South Korea have been divided militarily and perhaps culturally and socially. Would a blended Korea even be possible?
Secondly, how can China and Russia be removed from the equation? China and Russia aided North Korea during the war and stand as impediments to reunification now. Any conflict on the Korean Peninsula would be between China and the US. I've never believed the US has ever been bad for either Korea as the US has never sent unarmed men in waves toward their own deaths, nor have they withheld vital support to a country it really has no vested interest in supporting. Russia and China, on the other hand, have aided Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il in maintaining their grip on North Korea. The consequences for the people have been dire, to say the least.
Thirdly, would the rest of world assist North Korea in its adjustment to the free world, in whatever state it is in? Such a proposition is costly, never mind awkward.
I cannot answer any of these questions now. The crisis on the Korean Peninsula has been ongoing and it is doubtful it will change in the next year.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
The Ayers Connection
I cannot stress how utterly mind-numbing it is for Barack Obama to align himself with a man whose horrifying vision it is murder those who don't believe in some radical philosophy.
William Ayers was a terrorist, is a communist and supports Obama. Obama will use Ayers- and anyone else he sees fit- to get ahead. How on earth could the American electorate support this:
Why can't people see that this is a huge problem?
William Ayers was a terrorist, is a communist and supports Obama. Obama will use Ayers- and anyone else he sees fit- to get ahead. How on earth could the American electorate support this:
I asked, “well what is going to happen to those people we can’t reeducate,
that are diehard capitalists?” and the reply was that they’d have to be
eliminated.
And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to
eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.
And when I say “eliminate,” I mean “kill.”
Twenty-five million people.
I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which
have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers,
and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million
people.
And they were dead serious.
Why can't people see that this is a huge problem?
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
A Blatant Attempt at Sympathy
Should we pull out of Afghanistan?Fine- we'll leave, and in so doing, we'll abandon this puppy and others soldiers have been good enough to befriend.
Are we monsters?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)