Hella-Photos

They're hella-cool.

The Final Countdown

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

Head for Busan, everybody.

Bad Impressions

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

The Fuss Over Veils

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's how it's done.

Just Insufferable

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

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

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

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

Let the world know when you think of an answer.

Mea Culpa: An Apology

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

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

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

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

Stoking a Fire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few reflections on what everyone was thinking

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enjoy.

Mad Max Beyond the Freeway

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

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

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

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

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

Shut up, Bill Graham

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

Was that low? Maybe. Deserved? Definitely.

You Must Be Joking

Courage? Not bloody likely.

The Greatest Canadian?

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

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

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

At least the Austrians revile Hitler.

The Greatest Canadian

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

Something Very Wrong

Oh. My. Goodness.

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

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

The Guilt Meter

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

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

These are the facts as they have been reported.

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


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

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

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

But I digress...

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

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

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

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

Things That Fry Me

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aaahhhh, Juuuuunnnne........

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

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