Tuesday, September 29, 2009
To recap: the younger brothers of a forty year old adult female stabbed her to death and burned her along with her house because her alleged love affairs caused them distress.
As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation).
Remember that a woman's testimony is less than a man's in the Islamic world and the rate of severe convictions for honour killings.
Please read: Is there honor in honor killings?
I've blogged about this before. Experts in the past have questioned the Canadian government's swiftness in approving the vaccine for wide use saying that the effectiveness of the vaccine is not complete nor does anyone know the long-term effects of the vaccine. With schools implementing free vaccinations (you have to pay if you choose to get the vaccination at your doctor's office), very few are asking the why the urgency for a vaccine that might not work against the two strains of HPV that cause cancer. So far there have been over 1,637 adverse reaction reports (more information here).
Now, a fourteen year old girl has died from being given the vaccine.
If the current vaccine is not only ineffective against the strains of HPV which cause cancer but causes adverse reactions in girls vaccinated in school programs, why fund it?
Monday, September 28, 2009
Fiona Pilkington pleaded for police assistance as she and her family
suffered 10 years of torment and violence at the hands of the gang in Bullwell,
an inquest into their deaths heard.
But their requests to officers and local authorities were not given
priority, and their bodies were found in their burning car near their home in
October 2007, the court heard.
A jury at the inquest concluded Monday that police failure to
properly help the family -- despite 33 calls logged to police over the 10 years
-- contributed to Pilkington's decision to end their lives.
Ten years. What were the police waiting for? What kind of parents would let their kids join a gang and attack mentally disabled teenagers? What the hell is wrong with people?
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Obama isn't the only American who has a problem with Canada.
Remember when the world leaders (when not walking out on Ahmadinejad) praised Obama's disarmament plans?
I believe French president Nicolas Sarkozy said it best:
"We live in the real world, not a virtual world....and the real world
expects us to make decisions."
Le mot juste, mon presidente.
Further, President Sarkozy pointed out how useless resolutions were if rogue nations like North Korea and Iran were not tempered with serious action.
Le bingo, mon presidente.
Obama's socialist fantasies aside, why would anyone even dream of throwing away their most effective deterrents with Chinese and Russian-backed North Korea and Iran developing weapons of mass destruction and having the will to use them? This isn't just naivete; it's suicide. Forget about padding Obama's ego or even trying to speak to a madman like Ahmadinejad. Try snapping some sense into the man whose reckless disregard for international actions and their consequences could destabilise the globe. Pick your madman.
If that doesn't take the cake, this will.
That sounds strangely familiar. It sounds like songs for Kim Jong-Il and Mao Tse Tung, two dictators who also took the cult of personality to new levels.
Richard Warman, the driving force behind the attempt to ruin Ezra Levant with his utterly absurd and inflammatory accusations of hatred, is now being investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Oh, karma.....
A few pictures of the largest Anglo-Saxon horde yet found. Pretty sweet.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
"It is no longer acceptable that a small minority would dominate the politics, economy and culture of major parts of the world by its complicated networks, and establish a new form of slavery, and harm the reputation of other nations, even European nations and the U. S., to attain its racist ambitions," he said.
Was Mr. Ahmadinejad referring the theocracy that runs his country? It is truly appalling that he is allowed a platform on which to speak. It says a lot about the UN, the same organisation which failed the Rwandans.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper defended his decision to walk out on Iran:
"That's a decision that the United States and every other country has a right to make, but Canada makes its own decisions on these matters, and we believe strongly that given President Ahmadinejad's . . . just disgraceful insulting declarations denying the Holocaust, there is no way I'm going to permit any official of the government of Canada to be present and give any legitimacy to remarks by a leader like that..."
Ahmadinejad's rant was followed by Gaddafi whose lunatic ramblings won't soon be forgotten.
Obama was overshadowed by Gaddafi yet his speech was filled with empty platitudes of "peace" and "disarmament", a policy dangerous in a time when Iran or North Korea could conceivably make a weapon ready for use.
From the article:
He [Obama] warned he would "never apologize" for defending U.S. interests,
but added he now believed the "interests of nations and peoples are
Yet, Obama has yet to defend his country on virtually anything.
Mr. Obama said past policies had, in part, driven "reflexive
anti-Americanism," and lamented this had "served as an excuse for our collective
Incorrect. How much of the world is defended and/or supported by America yet such sympathy and generosity is met with anger and hypocrisy?
But he pledged his administration was showing a new direction and urged
other countries to help.
"Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world
cannot not stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems," Mr.
How true. In what direction will he steer the world?
"We have sought - in word and deed - a new era of engagement with the world.
Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global
response to global challenges."
Mr. Obama described "four pillars that are fundamental" to America's goals on the world stage: disarmament, peace and security, preservation of the planet, and ensuring equal opportunity in an expanding global economy.
He contradicts himself. With disarmament, the US cannot fix the problems NATO or the EU will not fix. Will China and Russia be reprimanded and punished for their roles in destabilising other countries and pollution? I cannot see that in the near future. Ensuring equal opportunity? Does he mean fair trade? Will China develop a charter for workers' rights? Will companies be made to pay fair prices for coffee or sugar? I'll believe it when I see it.
Sarah Palin (yes, I know I mention her a lot but she's newsworthy) expanded her international repertoire by speaking in Hong Kong, a move called by some as anti-American.
Query: what defines anti-Americanism? In Canada, anti-Americanism is the spearhead of irrational envy and xenophobia. How can someone who hasn't even left their province, let alone visited America or met an American, comment on Americans and their beliefs and habits? This isn't to say there has never been an "ugly American" out there but couldn't that be said about anyone? How many Canadians sew a Canadian flag on their backpacks thinking the world loves them? Nope. Not true. I've seen it. Usually, we're the beige of nationalities. I'd prefer a nice blue but hey, what can one do?
Anyway, one can read her full speech here.
Maybe I missed a point but I couldn't see how it was anti-American. Critical, yes, but anti-American, no. And plenty of valid criticisms and observations. Truly. I didn't agree with her points on China or Islam (yes, I can be critical). Ideology-driven states must be dismantled, not encouraged. Just my thoughts.
And finally, archaeologists have discovered what is claimed to be the biggest Anglo-Saxon horde.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Michael Ignatieff takes a cheap shot at his compatriot, Sarah Palin, and only engenders two things: more support for Stephen Harper and Mrs. Palin, and how completely clueless he is. Canada is caught in the ebbs of a global recession yet has escaped the worst of it. We're not America and Mr. Ignatieff better not forget it. Perhaps Mr. Ignatieff has forgotten the scandal-ridden and gaffe-tastic years of Chretien. And if Mr. Harper doesn't want to increase trade with China, I would be thrilled. Some people have little problem with Sarah Palin's energy plans. Why not use domestic oil reserves in a country where workers would be well-compensated and where environmental laws would be upheld? I don't see Nigeria or China fitting those bills.
The parents of Randal Dooley are asking for a new trial claiming that they had been treated unfairly. The parents claimed the child was accident-prone, suffocated himself, developed welts during a game of "licks" (where another child would hit him with a belt or branch) and other preposterous claims. I'm not seeing how they can weasel themselves out of this, despite the best efforts of weasel lawyers.
This report talks about sexual torture in North Korea. (WARNING: it is very disturbing and graphic).
Yet- for some reason- there are people who would prefer that communism (the system that the North Koreans languish under) is not mentioned.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
From the article:
Cathy Maples of Huntsville, Alabama, on Friday won the dinner in an Internet
auction, which was a benefit for a charity that aids wounded veterans.
Palin offered the dinner as part of the charity auction on eBay for the Ride
2 Recovery program, which supports wounded veterans through cycling
Yet, despite this, some are not pleased.
From a Yahoo comments board:
Had Mrs. Palin been like Al Gore, his boss, Bill Clinton or rabid capitalist, Michael Moore, and collected a HUGE sum of cash for a speaking tour, then maybe that would have been more acceptable. I guess charities have run their course.
Firstly, there is far too much USA news on this site. Its supposed to be a
Canadian news site. Secondly, Canadians are sick & tired of hearing about
this stupid btch. -Ensign
Gee, some people like wearing trailer trash on their sleeves. I know I can't speak for Ensign- nor would I want to- but Sarah Palin would be a welcome change from the lame-duck fellow who sold out the Poles not too long ago.
Wow, corruption and backroom deals.
No, charity. Read the article. It even says so.
I suppose some people can never catch a break.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Now, can one name a film about the killing fields of Cambodia? To my knowledge, there is only one feature film about that subject, The Killing Fields, about the late Dith Pran and starring the late Dr. Haing S. Ngor, both of whom survived a genocide that claimed nearly two million lives. That such an intense subject has not made the adequate rounds of celluloid (or digital) dabbling presents a disparity in an arena bent on taking stands.
However, Hollywood is not alone in its silent shunning about discussions and depictions of communism and its utter failure to be a practical and humane form of government. The National Capital Commission in Ottawa is afraid that its planned monument to remember the millions imprisoned and killed by communists everywhere will offend. Granted that anything one says or does these days is likely to offend, this particular monument should not be avoided for that reason. White-washing it to make palatable for some who cannot digest history and its ugliness itself is an offense to be avoided. Should one avoid the Holocaust or Guantanamo so as not to offend? Elitists would never dream of it. So why avoid mentioning how communists murdered so many millions? How can we learn from history if the pages have been streaked with black marker?
From the article:
...."Memorial to the Victims of Totalitarian Communism"....
Communism is totalitarian. It's kind of superfluous, really.
"I was unsettled by this name, and other members of the committee agreed
with me," Hélène Grand-Maître, one commission member, said at the public
approval hearing. "We should make sure that we are politically correct in this
designation.... I feel this name should be changed."
Perhaps Miss Grand-Maitre should list the sycophants who are offended. And the fact that she comes right and uses the term "politically correct" just shows how far we have to dig ourselves out.
Board member Adel Ayad noted that people who identify as communists might "not like" the memorial. "It's not communism itself that we should be fighting here.
It is rather totalitarianism we are against in any form."
Could anything more childish and dripping with denial? Why is Ayad afraid of specificity? Nazism was totalitarian and fascism, too. Islamist states are totalitarian but we cannot mention that without incurring some fire-bomb throwing ire. If communism is mentioned specifically then it would be hard to ignore the stares and the difficult questions it would undoubtedly face like: "Why did you send an entire family to a gulag?" and "Was it necessary to starve Ukrainians to death?" Yes, sin loves company or- better yet- to be forgotten at all costs.
One commissioner questioned whether Canadians could even legitimately point
fingers at the brutality of Stalin or Pol Pot, given that our own federal
government had put Japanese-Canadians in internment camps during the Second
Completely dishonest intellectually and morally. Yes, our government sent Canadians of Japanese descent into internment camps- something they admitted to, apologised for and made reparations for. How any of that is even remotely comparable to the killing fields or Holodmor is beyond me. This kind of deflection and denial works well with Putin but not so in a country that rehashes "white guilt" on an almost daily basis. Efforts have been made to ignore Babi Yar, Katyn, the Chinese famine under Mao and North Korea. Surely, intellectually if not morally, we've hit a wall and realised we cannot ignore these events and atrocities any longer.
Please contact the National Capital Commission or the ombudsman.
National Capital Commission
202–40 Elgin Street
Monday, September 14, 2009
A report from the Canadian Cancer Society has found that cancer patients have limited or no access to life-saving drugs.
From the report:
The report, released Monday, says patients in some provinces will have cancer drugs covered under comprehensive insurance plans, while those in other jurisdictions must pay some or all of the cost from their own pockets.
And with most newer cancer drugs carrying price tags that can run into thousands of dollars, the burden of paying for life-saving treatments can mean financial disaster for some Canadians, the society says.
Although cancer medications given in hospital are paid for by the health-care system, that isn't the case once a patient is discharged, said Demers. "If they're administered at home, the individual is responsible for paying for them."
The coverage varies widely from province to province.
From the Canadian Cancer Society website:
According to the Canada Health Act, only drugs provided during a hospital stay are provided free of charge.
45% of cancer drugs were administered outside of hospitals in 2006 and often the patient is responsible for paying for their treatment.
One-fifth of Canadians are not insured for routine drug costs.
Spending on drugs is the fastest growing expenditure of the health care system and is expected to grow faster (8.3%) than spending on hospitals (5.8 %) or physicians (6.2 %).
The working poor, middle-class and self-employed who have paid into the health system all of their lives are the most vulnerable, and many are unaware of the situation until they face a cancer diagnosis.
Significant disparities exist between drug plans as to what drugs are covered and/or how they can be used. These discrepancies are based largely on individual provinces’ cost-containment goals the priority of cancer within a province’s healthcare system
how appropriate utilization of drugs is defined the drug plan’s interpretation of what constitutes acceptable value for money.
Who would have thought?
Michael Ignatieff, Liberal Party bigwig and American extraordinaire, declares his party would restore Canada on the world stage.
Mr. Ignatieff has been away too long.
We are on the world stage.
Not at all surprising that El Presidente Maximo "el Uno" doesn't know what he's talking about.
His remark about tonsillectomies and amputations has shown him to be a man out of sync with the times.The last time that tonsillectomies are performed similar to what he claimed was back in the 60's. Back then, if the tonsils are thought to harbor organisms that cause frequent sore throats, they will be taken out. Nowadays, there are those who will carry strep in their tonsils as carriers without symptoms. They are about 15% of the pediatric population, as per the Atlanta ENT's web page on strep/tonsillectomy.
If el Presidente's advisers can't find this information, which took me all of 6 minutes (bathroom break, including hand washing), how can we trust him and his advisers to get "healthcare reform" right?
It says it all.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
From his speech:
"Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics ... And out of this
blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned."
Indeed. Has Mr. Obama examined how socialised medicine works, including all its short-comings? He has no further to look than Canada where one could wait weeks to months for a knee replacement or MRI. The government can also cap the number of medical personnel entering the workforce and the salary of a general practitioner.
But he said "the time for bickering" over details of the legislation is past
and insisted the consequences of defeat - measured in lives lost, bankrupted
families and cost to the U.S. Treasury - are too high for him to accept.
It is the details that confuse or anger the opponents of his plan. For example, Mr. Obama promised that illegal immigrants would not be covered under this plan. Unless something suddenly drastic occurred, that is not what the plan states:
CRS Report for Congress - Aug. 25, 2009- Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress-
"H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens participating in the Exchange - whether the noncitizens are legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently." (emphasis mine)
A detail that cannot be bickered over are the numbers of uninsured. Byron York of the Washington Examiner pointed out the fluid numbers of people who are not or cannot be insured (that itself is an important distinction):
Remember all those statements from Democrats, including Barack Obama
himself, that 47 million Americans are without health insurance? That's no
longer the operative number. "There are now more than thirty million American
citizens who cannot get coverage," the president said in tonight's speech.... So
why did Obama make the change? The first possibility is the difference between
people who "don't have any health insurance" and people who "cannot get
coverage." Millions of Americans who can afford health insurance choose not to
have it, many of them because they are young, healthy and unlikely to need it.
The second difference in Obama's phrasing is between "people without health
insurance," in his old phrasing, and "American citizens" without coverage, as he
said in last night's speech.
I think what needs to be scrutinised is Obama's intention. There is no doubt that insurance reform is needed in the US. If Obama is as "centrist" as he claimed, then he would have gathered various experts and held a round-table discussion in order to explore efficient and fair possibilities for reform. That is not what he did. He tried to adopt the "universal health-care" approach which would have proven unwieldy, expensive and ultimately discriminatory to patients who would have their health-care rationed by bureaucrats.
Sidebar: the preceding statement is made deliberately and from someone who lives with socialised medicine. Imagine being told you have to wait for treatment for a brain tumor, or having a cancer exam botched. Now imagine there is no one to appeal to.
Emerging from self-imposed exile is former Alaska governor Sarah Palin whose "death panels" remark caused quite a stir. Despite unproven claims of intellectual dwarfism, Mrs. Palin's opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal makes a fair bit of sense for a skeptic:
Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked
that Americans "talk with one another, and not over one another" as our
health-care debate moves forward.
I couldn't agree more. Let's engage the other side's arguments, and
let's allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats'
health-care proposals should become governing law.
Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that "no one in this country
should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds." Each of us knows that
we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand
strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.
We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.
How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while
also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the
problem. I fundamentally disagree.
Mrs. Palin outlines the deficits of the current system and the merits of free choice in the first five paragraphs of her opinion piece. How has she erred here? She is right to point out that there are deficiencies in the system. She is also correct in pointing out how taking on the vast responsibility of health-care could fail not only the government but the very people the system is meant to care for. She calls for reform- a patient-oriented reform- not government interference. Sounds sensible to me.
When Jon Voight points out "Hanoi" Jane Fonda's baffling yet not-too-unexpected hypocrisy regarding Israel, it's like a breath of fresh air. If there could be demerit points for every time a Hollywood buffoon said or did something stupid, I would feel hope for the universe.
Now, for your daily shock. Watch as ACORN (Obama's ACORN) not bats an eyelid when an undercover pimp and prostitute ask how they can illegally smuggle children across the border. Sick just doesn't encompass the lot.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Mary Stuart is crowned Queen of Scots in 1543.
Étienne Brulé discovers Toronto in 1615. Toronto is an Iroquois word meaning "a good place to do business". It also means "there is nowhere to park your car".
The United States is officially called the United States in 1776 by the Continental Congress.
Lev Tolstoy is born in 1828. (notice how short that sentence is)
Cliff Robertson (Uncle Ben in the "Spider-Man" movies) is born in 1923.
Otis Redding is born in 1941.
The Republic of North Korea is declared in 1948. It hasn't gone anywhere (unfortunately).
Goran Visnjic was born in 1972. There is a noticeable ice melt on the polar caps.
Who thought there was nothing fascinating about his day? Not me!
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
For one's edification: Stalin: The First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives
The Whisperers (awesome book, by the way)
Stalin The Court Of The Red Tsar
Koba the Dread (another good book)