As if Vladimir Putin's iron-handed rule wasn't reminiscent enough of the bad old days of the Soviet Union, now comes word that the Cold War really has resumed.
Apparently, some people on both sides of the Atlantic would like to see a replay of the 1972 Summit Series, an eight-game hockey showdown between Canada and Russian professional players - the first time the world's two primary hockey superpowers had met on the ice under equal terms.
No doubt, in the United States, the series passed with but a whisper. In Canada, however, the whole nation stopped during Game 8 where, with the series tied 3-3-1 and the final game tied in the final minute, Paul Henderson picked the puck up in the Soviet corner found his way to the front of the net and forced it past goaltender Vladislav Tretiak with 34 seconds remaining.
Here's a really cool little clip from the CBC of the moments leading up to and after the goal. The call is by Foster Hewitt, a Canadian icon for more than 50 years who basically created the term "He shoots! He scores!"
The goal comes about three minutes in but watch up until then to see the tension etched in the faces of viewers.
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-41-318-1650/sports/summit_series/clip7
It's a moment that remains locked in the Canadian identity because the series was more than hockey (and, in Canada, just hockey is pretty powerful on its own)- it was us vs. them; the free world vs. tyranny...and freedom won (largely due to Bobby Clarke's Machiavellian attack on Valeri Kharlamov's ankle that forced the Soviet superstar from the series, it must be noted).
Personally, I think the idea of trying to resurrect the series is ridiculous. You could never recreate that kind of tension with the emotional overtones of the first. Canada and Russia have played numerous times since then and the best Russian players now play in the NHL alongside Canadian players every day. We send our best to the Olympics just like they do (and did in 1972, while we sent amateurs) and there are many other tournaments where the two nations meet. On top of that, Russian hockey is now only in the mix of the world's best nations; Canada is a consistent number one but any of Russia, Sweden, Finland and occasionally the US can have dominant moments.
On the plus side, with the way Putin's been acting lately, maybe a nasty Bobby Clarke two-hander to his skull would serve the world well.
On another Russian note, it was interesting to see the Russians pull much of their technical staff from Iran over reported stalled payments on the Iranians plan to incinerate Israel (oh, sorry, peaceful nuclear power program), with speculation it could have been due to side negotiations with the US.
But then they turn around and block the UN from issuing a stronger rebuke to Iran for its kidnapping of 15 British sailors (and, yes, I absolutely mean kidnapping). The reason? Well, let's see: oil has gone up three or four dollars a barrel since the kidnapping and Russia is making scads on the world oil markets. Coincidence? I think not.
As for the Britain/Iran standoff: the Iranians have once again shown their complete disregard for any kind of civility and humanity (not to mention the Geneva Convention). First they kidnap the 15 Brits, then they parade one of them on TV (after agreeing not to) and then they force her to write an obviously coerced statement.
Is there going to be a point, I wonder, at which the civilized world realizes Iran must be reined in and that sanctions and other penalties are put in place to ensure it happens?
And, lastly, I was going to write a few words about the renewal of the Arab League "peace plan" with Israel. But, then I thought, "why? Everyone with half-a-brain already realizes it's a complete and utter farce." Sadly, I'm not sure that Ehud Olmert has the half brain necessary but for Israel's sake, I truly hope he's at least that smart
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Buried in Their Own Shit
If ever a story encapsulated everything about the Palestinians, this is it:
"UMM NASER, Gaza Strip - A huge sewage reservoir in the northern Gaza Strip collapsed Tuesday, killing five people in a frothing cascade of waste and mud that swamped a village and highlighted the desperate need to upgrade Gaza's overburdened infrastructure.
Rescue crews and Hamas gunmen rushed to the area to search for people feared buried under the sewage and mud. Dressed in wetsuits, they paddled boats through the layer of foam floating on the green and brown rivers of waste. Others waded up to their hips into the sewage.
The noxious smell of waste and dead animals hung in the air.
Angry residents drove reporters away and mobbed government officials. When Interior Minister Hani Kawasmeh arrived to survey the damage, his bodyguards fired in the air to disperse the crowd.
Aid officials said plans to build a larger waste treatment facility had been held up for years by perpetual fighting in the area between Israel and Palestinians and donor concerns about political instability. However, construction did not appear to have been affected by international sanctions imposed on the Palestinians after the militant Hamas group's election victory last year.
The existing treatment plant in northern Gaza — located just a few hundred yards from the border with Israel — stores waste in seven holding basins. With the burgeoning population producing nearly four times as much waste as the plant could treat, officials have put overflow sewage in the nearby dunes, creating a lake covering nearly 110 acres, the U.N. said.
On Tuesday morning, an earth embankment around one of the seven basins collapsed, sending a wall of sewage crashing into the neighboring village of Umm Naser.
The wave killed two women in their 70s, two toddlers and a teenage girl and injured 35 other people, hospital officials said. More than 200 homes were destroyed, health officials said.
The Gaza City mayor blamed the collapse on local people digging dirt from the structure and selling it to building contractors.
Aid officials and the Palestinian government sent bulldozers to build makeshift walls to push back the sewage. Officials will also try to divert the waste into the other holding basins, putting those in danger of overflowing. Another collapse could send sewage flooding into Beit Lahiya, a far larger town, officials said.
"We are doing all we can to prevent any disaster, but the solution is temporary," said government engineer Nidal Musalameh.
Many of the evacuated residents were staying in tents and other shelters nearby, rescue officials said. But officials feared a public health disaster.
Gaza City Mayor Majid Abu Ramadan, who leads a council of Gaza municipalities, blamed the collapse on lawlessness in the Gaza Strip, accusing residents of stealing the dirt and selling it to building companies for $70 a truckload.
A 2004 U.N. report warned that the sewage facility, built for a population of 50,000, was handling waste from 190,000 people, and flooding was inevitable. It warned that the lake created by the overflow from the seven basins posed a serious health hazard, providing a breeding ground for mosquitoes and waterborne diseases.
Shepard said that since the report was published, international funding for a new plant had been secured but construction could not proceed because of security risks in the area.
The flooding underscored the fragility of the overburdened infrastructure in the impoverished and overcrowded coastal region of 1.4 million people. The West Bank, too, is suffering from eroding sewage and water infrastructure.
Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum blamed international "sanctions against Palestinians" for the sorry condition of Gaza's infrastructure. Most foreign donors froze aid to the Palestinian government after Hamas came to power last year, but Shepard said a project to build a treatment plant in northern Gaza had not been affected by the boycott.
An internal World Bank document obtained by The Associated Press said the Palestinian Authority decided in 2003 to dump partially treated excess waste into the ocean, but Israel vetoed the idea."
Okay, to begin with: it's tragic women and children were killed.
But, let's just sum up: Palestinians ignore warnings. Palestinians create disaster. Palestinian women and children die. Palestinians blame Israel. Israel totally vindicated. Palestinians blame international community, instead.
Oh, and on top of that, their original solution was to create an environmental disaster by dumping partiallly treated waste into the ocean.
Palestinians can't control shit...but, by all means, sign these people up for statehood.
"UMM NASER, Gaza Strip - A huge sewage reservoir in the northern Gaza Strip collapsed Tuesday, killing five people in a frothing cascade of waste and mud that swamped a village and highlighted the desperate need to upgrade Gaza's overburdened infrastructure.
Rescue crews and Hamas gunmen rushed to the area to search for people feared buried under the sewage and mud. Dressed in wetsuits, they paddled boats through the layer of foam floating on the green and brown rivers of waste. Others waded up to their hips into the sewage.
The noxious smell of waste and dead animals hung in the air.
Angry residents drove reporters away and mobbed government officials. When Interior Minister Hani Kawasmeh arrived to survey the damage, his bodyguards fired in the air to disperse the crowd.
Aid officials said plans to build a larger waste treatment facility had been held up for years by perpetual fighting in the area between Israel and Palestinians and donor concerns about political instability. However, construction did not appear to have been affected by international sanctions imposed on the Palestinians after the militant Hamas group's election victory last year.
The existing treatment plant in northern Gaza — located just a few hundred yards from the border with Israel — stores waste in seven holding basins. With the burgeoning population producing nearly four times as much waste as the plant could treat, officials have put overflow sewage in the nearby dunes, creating a lake covering nearly 110 acres, the U.N. said.
On Tuesday morning, an earth embankment around one of the seven basins collapsed, sending a wall of sewage crashing into the neighboring village of Umm Naser.
The wave killed two women in their 70s, two toddlers and a teenage girl and injured 35 other people, hospital officials said. More than 200 homes were destroyed, health officials said.
The Gaza City mayor blamed the collapse on local people digging dirt from the structure and selling it to building contractors.
Aid officials and the Palestinian government sent bulldozers to build makeshift walls to push back the sewage. Officials will also try to divert the waste into the other holding basins, putting those in danger of overflowing. Another collapse could send sewage flooding into Beit Lahiya, a far larger town, officials said.
"We are doing all we can to prevent any disaster, but the solution is temporary," said government engineer Nidal Musalameh.
Many of the evacuated residents were staying in tents and other shelters nearby, rescue officials said. But officials feared a public health disaster.
Gaza City Mayor Majid Abu Ramadan, who leads a council of Gaza municipalities, blamed the collapse on lawlessness in the Gaza Strip, accusing residents of stealing the dirt and selling it to building companies for $70 a truckload.
A 2004 U.N. report warned that the sewage facility, built for a population of 50,000, was handling waste from 190,000 people, and flooding was inevitable. It warned that the lake created by the overflow from the seven basins posed a serious health hazard, providing a breeding ground for mosquitoes and waterborne diseases.
Shepard said that since the report was published, international funding for a new plant had been secured but construction could not proceed because of security risks in the area.
The flooding underscored the fragility of the overburdened infrastructure in the impoverished and overcrowded coastal region of 1.4 million people. The West Bank, too, is suffering from eroding sewage and water infrastructure.
Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum blamed international "sanctions against Palestinians" for the sorry condition of Gaza's infrastructure. Most foreign donors froze aid to the Palestinian government after Hamas came to power last year, but Shepard said a project to build a treatment plant in northern Gaza had not been affected by the boycott.
An internal World Bank document obtained by The Associated Press said the Palestinian Authority decided in 2003 to dump partially treated excess waste into the ocean, but Israel vetoed the idea."
Okay, to begin with: it's tragic women and children were killed.
But, let's just sum up: Palestinians ignore warnings. Palestinians create disaster. Palestinian women and children die. Palestinians blame Israel. Israel totally vindicated. Palestinians blame international community, instead.
Oh, and on top of that, their original solution was to create an environmental disaster by dumping partiallly treated waste into the ocean.
Palestinians can't control shit...but, by all means, sign these people up for statehood.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Iran's Elephant Needs a Few Mice
In between kidnapping British sailors and trying to build nuclear weapons, the Iranians have been busy lately doing that most islamic of things: whining loudly about western decadence.
In this case, their enmity has been focused on the movie "300"; the comic book-style film about the battle of Thermoplyae where roughly that number of Spartans held off thousands of Persians. The Iranians claim the movie is a deliberate propaganda attempt to make them look bad - Persians being the forerunners of today's Iranians. Of course, being moronic buttheads, they can't actually understand the movie is really a deliberate attempt to make millions of dollars off cash-rich teenage boys with no dates who've already conquered all the latest video games.
The Iranians seem to get their noses out of joint fairly often when it comes to Western entertainment. (It must be admitted, we get our noses out of joint on islamic entertainment, too, but since that seems to be mostly violence of the real sort, rather than cartoon, I'd say we have a point).
A quick search showed in the last year or so, the Iranians have protested 300, Mohammed cartoons, the movie "Pirates of the Caribbean" and first, and funniest, Tom and Jerry.
I hadn't heard about the Tom and Jerry thing until today when someone asked me about it, so maybe I just missed something. But, apparently, it was developed as a zionist plot by arch-Jew Walt Disney to persuade Europeans that Jews weren't so bad. Jerry, it seems was a Jewish mouse and by being cute and funny while still kicking Tom's ass he fooled European children into thinking Jews (or mice) were pretty cool.
As "Professor" Hasan Bolkahri, a member of the Film Council of Iran Broadcasting and cultural advisor to the Iranian Educaiton Minister, put it:
There is a cartoon that children like. They like it very much, and so do adults - Tom and Jerry.
[...]
Some say that this creation by Walt Disney will be remembered forever. The Jewish Walt Disney Company gained international fame with this cartoon. It is still shown throughout the world. This cartoon maintains its status because of the cute antics of the cat and mouse - especially the mouse.
Some say that the main reason for making this very appealing cartoon was to erase a certain derogatory term that was prevalent in Europe.
[...]
If you study European history, you will see who was the main power to hoard money and wealth, in the 19th century. In most cases, it is the Jews. Perhaps that was one of the reasons which caused Hitler to begin the anti-Semitic trend, and then the extensive propaganda about the crematoria began... Some of this is true. We do not deny all of it.
Watch Schindler's List. Every Jew was forced to wear a yellow star on his clothing. The Jews were degraded and termed "dirty mice." Tom and Jerry was made in order to change the Europeans' perception of mice. One of terms used was "dirty mice."
I'd like to tell you that... It should be noted that mice are very cunning...and dirty.[...]
You have to love his contention "some say" at the top. The "some", no doubt, being a few twisted Iranian idiots who really need to get out more.
Additionally, Tom and Jerry weren't created by Walt Disney. They were created by Joseph Barbera and William Hanna. And, by the time the pairing came along, it was already 1939 and no cat and mouse were going to save the Jews when the Americans were busy refusing to allow them to even enter the country as were Canada, Mexico and other nations.
It's incredible to believe that a nation led by people who will create such inane and absolute bullshit is currently holding a gun to the world's head. We don't need the US military or Israeli jets to defeat the Iranians. We don't even need 300 superpowered Spartans.
All we need is a bunch of mice and/or some creative cartoonists and we can probably drive the Iranians into such a fit of anger they'll collectively implode.
In this case, their enmity has been focused on the movie "300"; the comic book-style film about the battle of Thermoplyae where roughly that number of Spartans held off thousands of Persians. The Iranians claim the movie is a deliberate propaganda attempt to make them look bad - Persians being the forerunners of today's Iranians. Of course, being moronic buttheads, they can't actually understand the movie is really a deliberate attempt to make millions of dollars off cash-rich teenage boys with no dates who've already conquered all the latest video games.
The Iranians seem to get their noses out of joint fairly often when it comes to Western entertainment. (It must be admitted, we get our noses out of joint on islamic entertainment, too, but since that seems to be mostly violence of the real sort, rather than cartoon, I'd say we have a point).
A quick search showed in the last year or so, the Iranians have protested 300, Mohammed cartoons, the movie "Pirates of the Caribbean" and first, and funniest, Tom and Jerry.
I hadn't heard about the Tom and Jerry thing until today when someone asked me about it, so maybe I just missed something. But, apparently, it was developed as a zionist plot by arch-Jew Walt Disney to persuade Europeans that Jews weren't so bad. Jerry, it seems was a Jewish mouse and by being cute and funny while still kicking Tom's ass he fooled European children into thinking Jews (or mice) were pretty cool.
As "Professor" Hasan Bolkahri, a member of the Film Council of Iran Broadcasting and cultural advisor to the Iranian Educaiton Minister, put it:
There is a cartoon that children like. They like it very much, and so do adults - Tom and Jerry.
[...]
Some say that this creation by Walt Disney will be remembered forever. The Jewish Walt Disney Company gained international fame with this cartoon. It is still shown throughout the world. This cartoon maintains its status because of the cute antics of the cat and mouse - especially the mouse.
Some say that the main reason for making this very appealing cartoon was to erase a certain derogatory term that was prevalent in Europe.
[...]
If you study European history, you will see who was the main power to hoard money and wealth, in the 19th century. In most cases, it is the Jews. Perhaps that was one of the reasons which caused Hitler to begin the anti-Semitic trend, and then the extensive propaganda about the crematoria began... Some of this is true. We do not deny all of it.
Watch Schindler's List. Every Jew was forced to wear a yellow star on his clothing. The Jews were degraded and termed "dirty mice." Tom and Jerry was made in order to change the Europeans' perception of mice. One of terms used was "dirty mice."
I'd like to tell you that... It should be noted that mice are very cunning...and dirty.[...]
You have to love his contention "some say" at the top. The "some", no doubt, being a few twisted Iranian idiots who really need to get out more.
Additionally, Tom and Jerry weren't created by Walt Disney. They were created by Joseph Barbera and William Hanna. And, by the time the pairing came along, it was already 1939 and no cat and mouse were going to save the Jews when the Americans were busy refusing to allow them to even enter the country as were Canada, Mexico and other nations.
It's incredible to believe that a nation led by people who will create such inane and absolute bullshit is currently holding a gun to the world's head. We don't need the US military or Israeli jets to defeat the Iranians. We don't even need 300 superpowered Spartans.
All we need is a bunch of mice and/or some creative cartoonists and we can probably drive the Iranians into such a fit of anger they'll collectively implode.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Khadrs - Citizens on Paper Only
According to many published reports over the past months and years, as a Canadian, I'm supposed to be outraged by the fact the US is holding one our citizens.
After all, I'm frequently reminded, Omar Khadr was only 15 when he was apprehended by the US military and sent to Guantanomo Bay where he's been held ever since. The great ogre that is America has held young Khadr without - as yet - a trial. Woe is us! America has trampled the rights of one of our valuable citizens!
Well, except that Omar Khadr was raised to be a militant islamist by his parents. His father was one of Osama bin Laden's lieutenants and a trusted member of the al-Qaida network. He and his brothers spent time in an Afghanistan terror training camp. His mother and sister returned to Canada a couple of years ago and promptly went on lengthy tirades against Canada and the evils of western society while also promoting jihad and terrorist attacks. (His father, who was known as "The Canadian" in al-Qaida circles, was killed in a gunbattle in Afghanistan which was certainly no loss to our society).
One brother, who rejected terrorism and spoke out against his father and family is considered the "black sheep" of the family. That's right: he's the bad one because he didn't want to kill anyone or commit suicide while doing it.
Omar, himself, is in Guantanomo Bay for throwing a grenade into the face of Sergeant First Class Christopher Speer, a US medic. In other words, he murdered the man in cold blood.
Well, I do feel sorry for Omar. He was raised to be a killer and that's what he became. He should have been removed from his parents' sphere of influence and brought up in a proper Canadian home where he would have learned tolerance and respect. Maybe an Xbox game would have been enough to satisfy any violent tendencies as it seems to do for many children in our society.
But, I don't feel one-one millionth as sorry for him as I do for Christopher Speer and his family. Nor do I for one second denounce my government for refusing to interfere or the US for holding him where ever they feel is necessary. The Americans have said they won't seek the death penalty for Khadr which is more compassion than he ever showed for Sgt. Speer or anyone else in the west.
Frankly, the Khadrs are a perfect example of the failed policy of multiculturalism. They should be stripped of their citizenship and removed from this country immediately. We have no use for terrorists or their advocates and the Khadrs as they have clearly stated on numerous occasions, have no use for us.
After all, I'm frequently reminded, Omar Khadr was only 15 when he was apprehended by the US military and sent to Guantanomo Bay where he's been held ever since. The great ogre that is America has held young Khadr without - as yet - a trial. Woe is us! America has trampled the rights of one of our valuable citizens!
Well, except that Omar Khadr was raised to be a militant islamist by his parents. His father was one of Osama bin Laden's lieutenants and a trusted member of the al-Qaida network. He and his brothers spent time in an Afghanistan terror training camp. His mother and sister returned to Canada a couple of years ago and promptly went on lengthy tirades against Canada and the evils of western society while also promoting jihad and terrorist attacks. (His father, who was known as "The Canadian" in al-Qaida circles, was killed in a gunbattle in Afghanistan which was certainly no loss to our society).
One brother, who rejected terrorism and spoke out against his father and family is considered the "black sheep" of the family. That's right: he's the bad one because he didn't want to kill anyone or commit suicide while doing it.
Omar, himself, is in Guantanomo Bay for throwing a grenade into the face of Sergeant First Class Christopher Speer, a US medic. In other words, he murdered the man in cold blood.
Well, I do feel sorry for Omar. He was raised to be a killer and that's what he became. He should have been removed from his parents' sphere of influence and brought up in a proper Canadian home where he would have learned tolerance and respect. Maybe an Xbox game would have been enough to satisfy any violent tendencies as it seems to do for many children in our society.
But, I don't feel one-one millionth as sorry for him as I do for Christopher Speer and his family. Nor do I for one second denounce my government for refusing to interfere or the US for holding him where ever they feel is necessary. The Americans have said they won't seek the death penalty for Khadr which is more compassion than he ever showed for Sgt. Speer or anyone else in the west.
Frankly, the Khadrs are a perfect example of the failed policy of multiculturalism. They should be stripped of their citizenship and removed from this country immediately. We have no use for terrorists or their advocates and the Khadrs as they have clearly stated on numerous occasions, have no use for us.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
A little meme about MeMe
I almost never do this kind of stuff but for some reason, I liked this one:
FIRSTS:
First job: Newspaper delivery boy followed by the usual assortment of crappy teenage work. Adult job: newspaper reporter at a small town weekly.
First funeral: My great grandmother's.
First piercing: none
First tattoo: none...I'd like to get one but it's one thing I've always held back on because Jews aren't supposed to have tattoos.
First credit card: Visa
First favorite musician/band: KISS...ROFLMAO! What can I say? I was 11. Hearing "Beth" still makes me feel like a kid.
LASTS:Last movie watched: Borat
Last beverage drank: Water...I'm out of beer.
Last food consumed: Fish and chips
Last phone call: my son's babysitter
Last CD played: Bruce Springsteen's Greatest Hits, CD 3
Last website visited: This one.
Single or Taken: Taken.
What do you miss? The sun. It's been raining here for weeks.
Hair color: Light brown with more grey every day.
Natural color: grey, I guess the brown was just 40+ years of colouring.
Eye color: blue
Makes you sad: Being out of beer.
FIRSTS:
First job: Newspaper delivery boy followed by the usual assortment of crappy teenage work. Adult job: newspaper reporter at a small town weekly.
First funeral: My great grandmother's.
First piercing: none
First tattoo: none...I'd like to get one but it's one thing I've always held back on because Jews aren't supposed to have tattoos.
First credit card: Visa
First favorite musician/band: KISS...ROFLMAO! What can I say? I was 11. Hearing "Beth" still makes me feel like a kid.
LASTS:Last movie watched: Borat
Last beverage drank: Water...I'm out of beer.
Last food consumed: Fish and chips
Last phone call: my son's babysitter
Last CD played: Bruce Springsteen's Greatest Hits, CD 3
Last website visited: This one.
Single or Taken: Taken.
What do you miss? The sun. It's been raining here for weeks.
Hair color: Light brown with more grey every day.
Natural color: grey, I guess the brown was just 40+ years of colouring.
Eye color: blue
Makes you sad: Being out of beer.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Unity - When Everyone Shoots At Each Other At Once
Once upon a time, when I was young and naive (ie. under 30 and still believing in warm, fuzzy Liberal-style ideology), I thought Israel could have peace with the Palestinians.
As I got a little older, I began to believe that while Israel and the palestinians would never have a real peace, it was possible to at least create a "cold" peace where the parties just kept out of one another's affairs as much as possible.
Then, after Arafat walked away from Camp David in favour of starting the second intifailure, I realized there would never be anything but hatred emanating from the palis towards the Israelis. So, I backed the concept of the wall and increased checkpoints along with the Gaza pullout which helped solidify that part of Israel's borders. At that same time, I began to believe there was no way the palestinians would avoid civil war once Arafat was sent to roast in hell with his buddies Yassin and Rantisi.
The palestinians haven't really had their civil war yet. They've had what would better be considered as mindless street thuggery...the kind the bloods and crips might have if they were all armed with AK-47s instead of .38 specials and knives. There's no war, really, just tit-for-tat violence that claims lots of terrorist-wannabe lives and just as many innocent lives.
But, of course, the palis have it all figured out. The Saudis brokered that famous peace, the palestinian unity government was formed, approved and sworn in only three days ago! The Russians were said to be ready to normalize relationships, the Norwegians sent a representative and urged other nations to do likewise, the rest of the Euroweenies were falling all over each other to hail this remarkable advance and even the US signalled its willingness to meet with non-Hamas members of the new "unity" government.
But, here's today's news: GAZA (Reuters) - A militant loyal to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah faction was killed and seven people were wounded on Wednesday in the first deadly clash between Fatah and Hamas since a unity government was formed.
Within hours, two Palestinians linked to Hamas were abducted in Gaza City in a sign violence could spread despite the new coalition's stated aim of ending factional strife and closing ranks against a crippling year-old Western aid embargo.
Now, two days without killing each other IS a significant achievement for palestinians but hardly the stuff of unity. They couldn't even make it past 50 hours, with the world watching, before they resumed their slaughter...it's the palestinian version of playing Xbox.
Ho-hum, better they kill each other than Israelis, anyway. Guess the Russians and Europeans will just have to wait for the bloodletting to end before they can once again begin pandering to Arab interests. Hopefully, the US at least won't make the same dumb statement again and thankfully Canada never even came close to accepting this latest formation of palestinian terror groups.
As I got a little older, I began to believe that while Israel and the palestinians would never have a real peace, it was possible to at least create a "cold" peace where the parties just kept out of one another's affairs as much as possible.
Then, after Arafat walked away from Camp David in favour of starting the second intifailure, I realized there would never be anything but hatred emanating from the palis towards the Israelis. So, I backed the concept of the wall and increased checkpoints along with the Gaza pullout which helped solidify that part of Israel's borders. At that same time, I began to believe there was no way the palestinians would avoid civil war once Arafat was sent to roast in hell with his buddies Yassin and Rantisi.
The palestinians haven't really had their civil war yet. They've had what would better be considered as mindless street thuggery...the kind the bloods and crips might have if they were all armed with AK-47s instead of .38 specials and knives. There's no war, really, just tit-for-tat violence that claims lots of terrorist-wannabe lives and just as many innocent lives.
But, of course, the palis have it all figured out. The Saudis brokered that famous peace, the palestinian unity government was formed, approved and sworn in only three days ago! The Russians were said to be ready to normalize relationships, the Norwegians sent a representative and urged other nations to do likewise, the rest of the Euroweenies were falling all over each other to hail this remarkable advance and even the US signalled its willingness to meet with non-Hamas members of the new "unity" government.
But, here's today's news: GAZA (Reuters) - A militant loyal to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah faction was killed and seven people were wounded on Wednesday in the first deadly clash between Fatah and Hamas since a unity government was formed.
Within hours, two Palestinians linked to Hamas were abducted in Gaza City in a sign violence could spread despite the new coalition's stated aim of ending factional strife and closing ranks against a crippling year-old Western aid embargo.
Now, two days without killing each other IS a significant achievement for palestinians but hardly the stuff of unity. They couldn't even make it past 50 hours, with the world watching, before they resumed their slaughter...it's the palestinian version of playing Xbox.
Ho-hum, better they kill each other than Israelis, anyway. Guess the Russians and Europeans will just have to wait for the bloodletting to end before they can once again begin pandering to Arab interests. Hopefully, the US at least won't make the same dumb statement again and thankfully Canada never even came close to accepting this latest formation of palestinian terror groups.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Even for LA, this guy's a headcase - so of course, he's a UCLA professor
Here is what Israel is up against when it comes to distortion from even westernized arabs. The following is from a UCLA professor and is a load of amazing crap. Nevertheless it was published in the Los Angeles Times, a major daily newspaper in one of the world's largest and most influential cities (my comments in bold).
In the war of words, The Times is Israel's ally
The paper consistently adopts Israel's language, giving credence to an inaccurate, simplistic and dangerous cliche.
By Saree Makdisi, SAREE MAKDISI, a professor of English and comparative literature at UCLA, writes frequently about the Middle East.
March 11, 2007
'AS SOON AS certain topics are raised," George Orwell once wrote, "the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: Prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse." Such a combination of vagueness and sheer incompetence in language, Orwell warned, leads to political conformity.
George Orwell abhorred tyranny and would have been aghast at the way most arab "societies" are run.
No issue better illustrates Orwell's point than coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the United States. Consider, for example, the editorial in The Times on Feb. 9 demanding that the Palestinians "recognize Israel" and its "right to exist." This is a common enough sentiment — even a cliche. Yet many observers (most recently the international lawyer John Whitbeck) have pointed out that this proposition, assiduously propagated by Israel's advocates and uncritically reiterated by American politicians and journalists, is — at best — utterly nonsensical.
There is nothing nonsensical, of course, about such demands. "Recognize" means acknowledge it exists and "right to exist" means you foreswear trying to extinguish it from the face of the planet.
First, the formal diplomatic language of "recognition" is traditionally used by one state with respect to another state. It is literally meaningless for a non-state to "recognize" a state. Moreover, in diplomacy, such recognition is supposed to be mutual. In order to earn its own recognition, Israel would have to simultaneously recognize the state of Palestine. This it steadfastly refuses to do (and for some reason, there are no high-minded newspaper editorials demanding that it do so).
Israel has signalled its willingness to recognize a palestinian state once one is brought into being for decades. The palestinians themselves have chosen not to have a state. Arafat was offered 97 per cent of what the palestinians asked for along with control of the Temple Mount/Golden Mosque area and rejected it.
Second, which Israel, precisely, are the Palestinians being asked to "recognize?" Israel has stubbornly refused to declare its own borders. So, territorially speaking, "Israel" is an open-ended concept. Are the Palestinians to recognize the Israel that ends at the lines proposed by the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan? Or the one that extends to the 1949 Armistice Line (the de facto border that resulted from the 1948 war)? Or does Israel include the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which it has occupied in violation of international law for 40 years — and which maps in its school textbooks show as part of "Israel"?
See above. Israel's borders remained undefined because the palestinians refuse a state. When Olmert said he would define Israel's borders unilaterally, the palestinians howled. They can't have it both ways.
For that matter, why should the Palestinians recognize an Israel that refuses to accept international law, submit to U.N. resolutions or readmit the Palestinians wrongfully expelled from their homes in 1948 and barred from returning ever since?
Non-binding resolutions do not have to be "submitted" to (interesting choice of words. Islam loves submission). The palestinians were not expelled from their homes; they fled at the urging of their own leaders who promised to wipe out the Jewish state.
If none of these questions are easy to answer, why are such demands being made of the Palestinians? And why is nothing demanded of Israel in turn?
ROFLMAO! Nothing is demanded of Israel? Of course not. Israel is only supposed to bow to every palestinian desire, allow itself to be destroyed by Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and the whackos in Iran and in the meantime must apologize every time some palestinian gets a sliver when pushed against the wall after being apprehended for trying to enter Israel wearing a bomb belt.
Orwell was right. It is much easier to recycle meaningless phrases than to ask — let alone to answer — difficult questions. But recycling these empty phrases serves a purpose. Endlessly repeating the mantra that the Palestinians don't recognize Israel helps paint Israel as an innocent victim, politely asking to be recognized but being rebuffed by its cruel enemies.
Orwell certainly was right...in tyrannies, the truth is alterable and 2+2=5 if your leaders tell you it is and you want to keep your head on your shoulders.
Actually, it asks even more. Israel wants the Palestinians, half of whom were driven from their homeland so that a Jewish state could be created in 1948, to recognize not merely that it exists (which is undeniable) but that it is "right" that it exists — that it was right for them to have been dispossessed of their homes, their property and their livelihoods so that a Jewish state could be created on their land. The Palestinians are not the world's first dispossessed people, but they are the first to be asked to legitimize what happened to them.
See above. The palestinians were not forced to leave by the Jews in 1948. Notice, the author also shows no acknowledgement for the 900,000 Jews thrown out of arab nations at the same time. True: the palestinians are not the world's first dispossessed people; they are however, the first dispossessed people allowed to suck the international tit for 60 years while practising terrorism and internicine violence.
A just peace will require Israelis and Palestinians to reconcile and recognize each other's rights. It will not require that Palestinians give their moral seal of approval to the catastrophe that befell them. Meaningless at best, cynical and manipulative at worst, such a demand may suit Israel's purposes, but it does not serve The Times or its readers.
Love the comment about a just peace. Indeed. Note the word "catastrophe". It sounds so much better as "nakba". The catastrophe was of the arabs own making.
And yet The Times consistently adopts Israel's language and, hence, its point of view. For example, a recent article on Israel's Palestinian minority referred to that minority not as "Palestinian" but as generically "Arab," Israel's official term for a population whose full political and human rights it refuses to recognize. To fail to acknowledge the living Palestinian presence inside Israel (and its enduring continuity with the rest of the Palestinian people) is to elide the history at the heart of the conflict — and to deny the legitimacy of Palestinian claims and rights.
Obviously, the author is again ignoring reality. Most "palestinians" today have no connection to Israel. Hundreds of thousands of them have been dispossessed from arab nations, not Israel. So much for arab brotherhood.
This is exactly what Israel wants. Indeed, its demand that its "right to exist" be recognized reflects its own anxiety, not about its existence but about its failure to successfully eliminate the Palestinians' presence inside their homeland — a failure for which verbal recognition would serve merely a palliative and therapeutic function.
If Israel wanted to eliminate the palestinian presence, it could have done so at any time by either expelling or slaughtering them. It has been far more humane towards palestinians than any arab nation. There are one million arab-Israelis (about 15 per cent of the population) and Israel has never moved to expel them. Why, I wonder, should Israel accept muslims in its country while Jews can't live in areas the palestinians want as part of their state? Nor, of course, can they live in most arab nations or even visit some of them.
In uncritically adopting Israel's own fraught terminology — a form of verbal erasure designed to extend the physical destruction of Palestine — The Times is taking sides.
If the paper wants its readers to understand the nature of this conflict, however, it should not go on acting as though only one side has a story to tell.
If the LA Times wants people to understand the conflict, it need look no further than professor Makdisi. The conflict is the result of arab refusal to accept reality and live in the 21st century - nothing more, nothing less.
In the war of words, The Times is Israel's ally
The paper consistently adopts Israel's language, giving credence to an inaccurate, simplistic and dangerous cliche.
By Saree Makdisi, SAREE MAKDISI, a professor of English and comparative literature at UCLA, writes frequently about the Middle East.
March 11, 2007
'AS SOON AS certain topics are raised," George Orwell once wrote, "the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: Prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse." Such a combination of vagueness and sheer incompetence in language, Orwell warned, leads to political conformity.
George Orwell abhorred tyranny and would have been aghast at the way most arab "societies" are run.
No issue better illustrates Orwell's point than coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the United States. Consider, for example, the editorial in The Times on Feb. 9 demanding that the Palestinians "recognize Israel" and its "right to exist." This is a common enough sentiment — even a cliche. Yet many observers (most recently the international lawyer John Whitbeck) have pointed out that this proposition, assiduously propagated by Israel's advocates and uncritically reiterated by American politicians and journalists, is — at best — utterly nonsensical.
There is nothing nonsensical, of course, about such demands. "Recognize" means acknowledge it exists and "right to exist" means you foreswear trying to extinguish it from the face of the planet.
First, the formal diplomatic language of "recognition" is traditionally used by one state with respect to another state. It is literally meaningless for a non-state to "recognize" a state. Moreover, in diplomacy, such recognition is supposed to be mutual. In order to earn its own recognition, Israel would have to simultaneously recognize the state of Palestine. This it steadfastly refuses to do (and for some reason, there are no high-minded newspaper editorials demanding that it do so).
Israel has signalled its willingness to recognize a palestinian state once one is brought into being for decades. The palestinians themselves have chosen not to have a state. Arafat was offered 97 per cent of what the palestinians asked for along with control of the Temple Mount/Golden Mosque area and rejected it.
Second, which Israel, precisely, are the Palestinians being asked to "recognize?" Israel has stubbornly refused to declare its own borders. So, territorially speaking, "Israel" is an open-ended concept. Are the Palestinians to recognize the Israel that ends at the lines proposed by the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan? Or the one that extends to the 1949 Armistice Line (the de facto border that resulted from the 1948 war)? Or does Israel include the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which it has occupied in violation of international law for 40 years — and which maps in its school textbooks show as part of "Israel"?
See above. Israel's borders remained undefined because the palestinians refuse a state. When Olmert said he would define Israel's borders unilaterally, the palestinians howled. They can't have it both ways.
For that matter, why should the Palestinians recognize an Israel that refuses to accept international law, submit to U.N. resolutions or readmit the Palestinians wrongfully expelled from their homes in 1948 and barred from returning ever since?
Non-binding resolutions do not have to be "submitted" to (interesting choice of words. Islam loves submission). The palestinians were not expelled from their homes; they fled at the urging of their own leaders who promised to wipe out the Jewish state.
If none of these questions are easy to answer, why are such demands being made of the Palestinians? And why is nothing demanded of Israel in turn?
ROFLMAO! Nothing is demanded of Israel? Of course not. Israel is only supposed to bow to every palestinian desire, allow itself to be destroyed by Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and the whackos in Iran and in the meantime must apologize every time some palestinian gets a sliver when pushed against the wall after being apprehended for trying to enter Israel wearing a bomb belt.
Orwell was right. It is much easier to recycle meaningless phrases than to ask — let alone to answer — difficult questions. But recycling these empty phrases serves a purpose. Endlessly repeating the mantra that the Palestinians don't recognize Israel helps paint Israel as an innocent victim, politely asking to be recognized but being rebuffed by its cruel enemies.
Orwell certainly was right...in tyrannies, the truth is alterable and 2+2=5 if your leaders tell you it is and you want to keep your head on your shoulders.
Actually, it asks even more. Israel wants the Palestinians, half of whom were driven from their homeland so that a Jewish state could be created in 1948, to recognize not merely that it exists (which is undeniable) but that it is "right" that it exists — that it was right for them to have been dispossessed of their homes, their property and their livelihoods so that a Jewish state could be created on their land. The Palestinians are not the world's first dispossessed people, but they are the first to be asked to legitimize what happened to them.
See above. The palestinians were not forced to leave by the Jews in 1948. Notice, the author also shows no acknowledgement for the 900,000 Jews thrown out of arab nations at the same time. True: the palestinians are not the world's first dispossessed people; they are however, the first dispossessed people allowed to suck the international tit for 60 years while practising terrorism and internicine violence.
A just peace will require Israelis and Palestinians to reconcile and recognize each other's rights. It will not require that Palestinians give their moral seal of approval to the catastrophe that befell them. Meaningless at best, cynical and manipulative at worst, such a demand may suit Israel's purposes, but it does not serve The Times or its readers.
Love the comment about a just peace. Indeed. Note the word "catastrophe". It sounds so much better as "nakba". The catastrophe was of the arabs own making.
And yet The Times consistently adopts Israel's language and, hence, its point of view. For example, a recent article on Israel's Palestinian minority referred to that minority not as "Palestinian" but as generically "Arab," Israel's official term for a population whose full political and human rights it refuses to recognize. To fail to acknowledge the living Palestinian presence inside Israel (and its enduring continuity with the rest of the Palestinian people) is to elide the history at the heart of the conflict — and to deny the legitimacy of Palestinian claims and rights.
Obviously, the author is again ignoring reality. Most "palestinians" today have no connection to Israel. Hundreds of thousands of them have been dispossessed from arab nations, not Israel. So much for arab brotherhood.
This is exactly what Israel wants. Indeed, its demand that its "right to exist" be recognized reflects its own anxiety, not about its existence but about its failure to successfully eliminate the Palestinians' presence inside their homeland — a failure for which verbal recognition would serve merely a palliative and therapeutic function.
If Israel wanted to eliminate the palestinian presence, it could have done so at any time by either expelling or slaughtering them. It has been far more humane towards palestinians than any arab nation. There are one million arab-Israelis (about 15 per cent of the population) and Israel has never moved to expel them. Why, I wonder, should Israel accept muslims in its country while Jews can't live in areas the palestinians want as part of their state? Nor, of course, can they live in most arab nations or even visit some of them.
In uncritically adopting Israel's own fraught terminology — a form of verbal erasure designed to extend the physical destruction of Palestine — The Times is taking sides.
If the paper wants its readers to understand the nature of this conflict, however, it should not go on acting as though only one side has a story to tell.
If the LA Times wants people to understand the conflict, it need look no further than professor Makdisi. The conflict is the result of arab refusal to accept reality and live in the 21st century - nothing more, nothing less.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Canada - International Pariah Populated by Racist Bastards, Part Deux
Gee whiz, as if things weren't be enough for Canada what with the UN all pissy towards us these days, we've really done it now and upset the Egyptians.
Egypt's Foreign Ministry sent a rep over to see Canadian Embassy officials in Cairo last week. The reason: an 11-year-old Canadian girl had been told to remove her headscarf or leave the field during a recent soccer tournament in Quebec. The Ontario resident had been wearing the attire with no problem in her home province.
Egypt's Ambassador to Canada felt he had to weigh in, too. "If you look at things from a world perspective, it is as if Muslim or Islam are under attac and under siege around the world."
Yup. That's right: Canada is attacking the Muslim world because a girl couldn't wear her hijab at a soccer tournament. The referee issued the order, citing regulations around safety. The referee, BTW, was MUSLIM.
It was, in my opinion, actually stupid to remove the girl from the field. Hijabs are not, in themselves, offensive or dangerous to others. If any safety risk existed, it was solely to the player. I suppose it is possible that someone, for instance, might have grabbed the loose end and choked the girl. But, in a country that allows Sikh policeman and soldiers to forego the usual headwear in favour of turbans, it doesn't seem illogical to extend the same courtesy to a young girl.
What is, of course, absolutely illogical is the premise that Islam is under attack in Canada or around the globe. Islam is the global leader in attacking people and objects of other faiths and there is absolutely no way to extend an argument claiming otherwise in today's world reality. From Australia to Sweden, Islam has turned itself into a major concern for the rest of the world.
It is also beyond pale for Canada to accept any criticism from a nation like Egypt which routinely abuses human rights, murders the government's political opponents, resists women's rights, blows billions of US aid every year on fomenting anti-US sentiment and even goes as far as to jail bloggers.
I sincerely hope that our country responds by calling in the Egyptian ambassador each and every time Egypt abuses any rights; he'll be spending the rest of his life on the carpet. We should start with the Canadian of Egyptian descent who the Egyptians recently arrested as an Israeli spy even though everyone knows the real reason he's imprisoned is because he's a homosexual activist.
Egypt's Foreign Ministry sent a rep over to see Canadian Embassy officials in Cairo last week. The reason: an 11-year-old Canadian girl had been told to remove her headscarf or leave the field during a recent soccer tournament in Quebec. The Ontario resident had been wearing the attire with no problem in her home province.
Egypt's Ambassador to Canada felt he had to weigh in, too. "If you look at things from a world perspective, it is as if Muslim or Islam are under attac and under siege around the world."
Yup. That's right: Canada is attacking the Muslim world because a girl couldn't wear her hijab at a soccer tournament. The referee issued the order, citing regulations around safety. The referee, BTW, was MUSLIM.
It was, in my opinion, actually stupid to remove the girl from the field. Hijabs are not, in themselves, offensive or dangerous to others. If any safety risk existed, it was solely to the player. I suppose it is possible that someone, for instance, might have grabbed the loose end and choked the girl. But, in a country that allows Sikh policeman and soldiers to forego the usual headwear in favour of turbans, it doesn't seem illogical to extend the same courtesy to a young girl.
What is, of course, absolutely illogical is the premise that Islam is under attack in Canada or around the globe. Islam is the global leader in attacking people and objects of other faiths and there is absolutely no way to extend an argument claiming otherwise in today's world reality. From Australia to Sweden, Islam has turned itself into a major concern for the rest of the world.
It is also beyond pale for Canada to accept any criticism from a nation like Egypt which routinely abuses human rights, murders the government's political opponents, resists women's rights, blows billions of US aid every year on fomenting anti-US sentiment and even goes as far as to jail bloggers.
I sincerely hope that our country responds by calling in the Egyptian ambassador each and every time Egypt abuses any rights; he'll be spending the rest of his life on the carpet. We should start with the Canadian of Egyptian descent who the Egyptians recently arrested as an Israeli spy even though everyone knows the real reason he's imprisoned is because he's a homosexual activist.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Canada - International Pariah Populated By Racist Bastards
It seems I might live in a country that is quickly becoming an international pariah and I couldn't be happier about it.
Less than a week after the UN chided Canada (particularly Vancouver) for allowing safe injection sites, we were squarely back in their sights over racism. Seems the use of the term "visible minorities" is in itself a racist comment, according to a UN report.
Leaving aside for a moment the very real fact that being a visible minority in Canada actually has benefits - inasmuch as your special cultural beliefs and background have to be considered in all things big and small and there's all kinds of ways to voice your displeasure if you feel wronged - and the question of why the UN is once again busying itself with minutaie while civilization teeters ever closer to collapse, it also begs the question, what would the UN rather we use?
Because, of course, there was no alternative language suggested. Would the UN prefer we went back to describing people of African descent as niggers, East Asians as pakis and Chinese as chinks? Does that make me a Yank (born in the States), a Hun (family background), a kike (religous persuasion) or a honkie (skin colour)?
Does the UN want a warmer, fuzzier more PC term like "people whose skin colour may be slightly different from others but that doesn't make them less worthy" or "people who are just like everyone else and only racist bastards would suggest otherwise"? Seems a little wordy but then again government's never shied away from employing ridiculously long descriptions for everyday things.
Visible minority is a pretty accurate description for people who are not Caucasian and who live in Canada. According to the World Factbook, two-thirds of Canadians are from European countries which makes them generally Caucasian. Perhaps instead of visible minorities, we should eliminate all terms for people not of European descent and simply call Caucasians the "visible majority".
Or, perhaps we should just ignore the UN, like most everyone else does these days. And, like many of those nations, we should stop paying its damn bills, too.
Less than a week after the UN chided Canada (particularly Vancouver) for allowing safe injection sites, we were squarely back in their sights over racism. Seems the use of the term "visible minorities" is in itself a racist comment, according to a UN report.
Leaving aside for a moment the very real fact that being a visible minority in Canada actually has benefits - inasmuch as your special cultural beliefs and background have to be considered in all things big and small and there's all kinds of ways to voice your displeasure if you feel wronged - and the question of why the UN is once again busying itself with minutaie while civilization teeters ever closer to collapse, it also begs the question, what would the UN rather we use?
Because, of course, there was no alternative language suggested. Would the UN prefer we went back to describing people of African descent as niggers, East Asians as pakis and Chinese as chinks? Does that make me a Yank (born in the States), a Hun (family background), a kike (religous persuasion) or a honkie (skin colour)?
Does the UN want a warmer, fuzzier more PC term like "people whose skin colour may be slightly different from others but that doesn't make them less worthy" or "people who are just like everyone else and only racist bastards would suggest otherwise"? Seems a little wordy but then again government's never shied away from employing ridiculously long descriptions for everyday things.
Visible minority is a pretty accurate description for people who are not Caucasian and who live in Canada. According to the World Factbook, two-thirds of Canadians are from European countries which makes them generally Caucasian. Perhaps instead of visible minorities, we should eliminate all terms for people not of European descent and simply call Caucasians the "visible majority".
Or, perhaps we should just ignore the UN, like most everyone else does these days. And, like many of those nations, we should stop paying its damn bills, too.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
America: Alone But Still Strong
A few weeks ago I learned that, following the necessary tests, I was officially spermless and able to discard all types of birth control thanks to undergoing the big snip. Two kids...that's it, that's all.
Until last night, I considered that good news. But, last night, I began reading Mark Steyn's America Alone. And read it and read it, in growing horror.
It's not Steyn's take on the islamist/jihadist movement that turned my stomach - I share pretty much the same views as he does: that it's a dangerous, hateful, murderous cult and regardless of whether "mainstream" Muslims oppose it or not, it's gradually gaining strength, particularly in Europe.
What got me was his very rational argument that we may very well already be doomed and not just by Islam but by nanny-stateism and demographics. The first is one of the reasons I vote for a right of centre party. I don't need nor do I want someone holding my hand from cradle to grave to make sure I never get a skinned knee or to ensure that if I do that I can wait for about 18 hours in the emergency room before a doctor will look at it.
Demographics, on the other hand, I have to admit I've given short shrift to. I'm aware, certainly, of the demographic tide that would swamp Israel under a one-state solution which is why I so strongly oppose the stupid idea. I know, also, that Canada's birthrate is not sufficient to replace its population and that Russia is gradually becoming a wasteland for humans because not only does it have an unsustainably low birthrate but people are leaving. At least, in Canada's case, people want to move here and not generally from here.
But Steyn showed the problem is much worse than that. More than 15 European nations have birthrates that are not at replacement levels. Of those, many are seeing increasingly high Muslim populations because they're breeders - no question about it. As the European birthrate goes down and the Muslim population goes up, they become gradually more Arab, hence the term Eurabia. All of this I was more or less aware of but I had held out hope that some nations would eventually get their back up and crack down hard on islamist behaviour.
The sad fact, as Steyn draws one to conclude, is that the Europeans will never fight back because there is no will to sacrifice current comforts for any kind of dispute. And, it can't get better because the Europeans are shrinking to smaller and smaller percentages of the population within their own nations.
He thinks Europe is already past doomed; I only thought it was headed there. Sadly, he shows Japan is even worse off (not due to Islam at all, simply demographics) and even the Chinese isn't reproducing at a sufficient rate (that one baby idea is really going to crush them in a few years...imagine a society with 120 men for every 100 women, they'll have enough underused testosterone to act like islamists even if they aren't).
As for North America, Canada isn't in much better shape than most European countries. We have a nanny state that isn't quite Sweden or France but which certainly believes in coddling people and has adopted all of the PC garbage that allows radicalism to foster because we're too timid to stand up to it. Our current Conservativer party needs a majority and at least 10 years to turn this around.
Thankfully, we also have the US to our south. Steyn calls his book America Alone because the Americans are keeping up their birthrates, they understand that it's their society that is better, not Europe's and they're both proud and well-armed. Too many of the current crop of Democrat politicians would like to change much of that, of course, and here's hoping they never succeed.
From my front door, I can see the US, it's about 15 minutes drive to the south and Washington's Mount Baker dominates the view. I can tell you that if it ever comes down to choosing a 10-gallon hat, a rifle and a pick-up truck over knocking my head five times a day in the direction of Mecca, I'm going with the cowboys. Just don't make me drink Bud, okay?
Until last night, I considered that good news. But, last night, I began reading Mark Steyn's America Alone. And read it and read it, in growing horror.
It's not Steyn's take on the islamist/jihadist movement that turned my stomach - I share pretty much the same views as he does: that it's a dangerous, hateful, murderous cult and regardless of whether "mainstream" Muslims oppose it or not, it's gradually gaining strength, particularly in Europe.
What got me was his very rational argument that we may very well already be doomed and not just by Islam but by nanny-stateism and demographics. The first is one of the reasons I vote for a right of centre party. I don't need nor do I want someone holding my hand from cradle to grave to make sure I never get a skinned knee or to ensure that if I do that I can wait for about 18 hours in the emergency room before a doctor will look at it.
Demographics, on the other hand, I have to admit I've given short shrift to. I'm aware, certainly, of the demographic tide that would swamp Israel under a one-state solution which is why I so strongly oppose the stupid idea. I know, also, that Canada's birthrate is not sufficient to replace its population and that Russia is gradually becoming a wasteland for humans because not only does it have an unsustainably low birthrate but people are leaving. At least, in Canada's case, people want to move here and not generally from here.
But Steyn showed the problem is much worse than that. More than 15 European nations have birthrates that are not at replacement levels. Of those, many are seeing increasingly high Muslim populations because they're breeders - no question about it. As the European birthrate goes down and the Muslim population goes up, they become gradually more Arab, hence the term Eurabia. All of this I was more or less aware of but I had held out hope that some nations would eventually get their back up and crack down hard on islamist behaviour.
The sad fact, as Steyn draws one to conclude, is that the Europeans will never fight back because there is no will to sacrifice current comforts for any kind of dispute. And, it can't get better because the Europeans are shrinking to smaller and smaller percentages of the population within their own nations.
He thinks Europe is already past doomed; I only thought it was headed there. Sadly, he shows Japan is even worse off (not due to Islam at all, simply demographics) and even the Chinese isn't reproducing at a sufficient rate (that one baby idea is really going to crush them in a few years...imagine a society with 120 men for every 100 women, they'll have enough underused testosterone to act like islamists even if they aren't).
As for North America, Canada isn't in much better shape than most European countries. We have a nanny state that isn't quite Sweden or France but which certainly believes in coddling people and has adopted all of the PC garbage that allows radicalism to foster because we're too timid to stand up to it. Our current Conservativer party needs a majority and at least 10 years to turn this around.
Thankfully, we also have the US to our south. Steyn calls his book America Alone because the Americans are keeping up their birthrates, they understand that it's their society that is better, not Europe's and they're both proud and well-armed. Too many of the current crop of Democrat politicians would like to change much of that, of course, and here's hoping they never succeed.
From my front door, I can see the US, it's about 15 minutes drive to the south and Washington's Mount Baker dominates the view. I can tell you that if it ever comes down to choosing a 10-gallon hat, a rifle and a pick-up truck over knocking my head five times a day in the direction of Mecca, I'm going with the cowboys. Just don't make me drink Bud, okay?
Sunday, March 4, 2007
You Need Drugs To Understand the UN
All hail the mighty UN for surely it has finally found an issue that it can really sink its teeth into!
We're not talking about the slaughter in Darfur or the nuclear crisis in Iran or anything to do with the Israeli/palestinian situation. Nor is the topic for discussion human rights or starving children or even the environment.
Instead, the UN has fastened itself on to Vancouver and a few other cities/countries around the globe that offer drug addicts safe injection sites.
Seems those sites contravene a very, very important 1961 UN agreement where countries, including Canada, agreed not to treat drug addicts as anything other than the criminal scum God intended them to be treated as. Toss 'em in jail or let 'em die on the streets but never treat them with dignity or at least with enough conscience to provide relatively safe haven.
Since Vancouver opened its clean injection site several years ago, it seems to have gone some ways to alleviating the transmission of infectious diseases as well as helping to cut down on overdoses. There are, admittedly, some drawbacks, there has been some question about the peddling of drugs in its general vicinity.
Vancouver, facing a tough drug problem exascerbated by being a major port city with many Asian connections where the drugs come from as well as being one of the few places in Canada where people can live on the streets year-round without freezing, chose a humanitarian approach. In doing so, it joined other world cities with a more liberal outlook on drug use.
Iraq looks like a smooth military operation compared to the so-called war on drugs. In its latest incarnation, the poppy eradication program in Afghanistan is fuelling support for the Taliban. Going after growers ekeing out subsistence wages and addicts in the streets is not going to cure the problem. The answers lie in treating addicts as suffering from a medical condition rather than as criminals.
For the UN to involve itself in such a trivial matter as safe injection sites is about par for the course. Powerless to solve any real problems, it singles out "western decadence" so that representatives to the august body can preen and prance at home about their importance.
We're not talking about the slaughter in Darfur or the nuclear crisis in Iran or anything to do with the Israeli/palestinian situation. Nor is the topic for discussion human rights or starving children or even the environment.
Instead, the UN has fastened itself on to Vancouver and a few other cities/countries around the globe that offer drug addicts safe injection sites.
Seems those sites contravene a very, very important 1961 UN agreement where countries, including Canada, agreed not to treat drug addicts as anything other than the criminal scum God intended them to be treated as. Toss 'em in jail or let 'em die on the streets but never treat them with dignity or at least with enough conscience to provide relatively safe haven.
Since Vancouver opened its clean injection site several years ago, it seems to have gone some ways to alleviating the transmission of infectious diseases as well as helping to cut down on overdoses. There are, admittedly, some drawbacks, there has been some question about the peddling of drugs in its general vicinity.
Vancouver, facing a tough drug problem exascerbated by being a major port city with many Asian connections where the drugs come from as well as being one of the few places in Canada where people can live on the streets year-round without freezing, chose a humanitarian approach. In doing so, it joined other world cities with a more liberal outlook on drug use.
Iraq looks like a smooth military operation compared to the so-called war on drugs. In its latest incarnation, the poppy eradication program in Afghanistan is fuelling support for the Taliban. Going after growers ekeing out subsistence wages and addicts in the streets is not going to cure the problem. The answers lie in treating addicts as suffering from a medical condition rather than as criminals.
For the UN to involve itself in such a trivial matter as safe injection sites is about par for the course. Powerless to solve any real problems, it singles out "western decadence" so that representatives to the august body can preen and prance at home about their importance.
Friday, March 2, 2007
The Ambassador of Giggles
The Saudi Arabian ambassador to Canada has a career ahead of him as a stand-up comedian if a column he wrote for the National Post this week is any indication of his extreme sense of humour.
According to Abdulaziz Al-Sowayegh, the Mecca Accord that saw the pali factions reach a deal not to slaughter one another in the streets anymore should be accepted by the world. Canada, particularly, he says, should accept it because our reputation as an "impartial peace broker in the Middle East" has suffered of late.
Well, to begin with, Canada has never been an "impartial peace broker in the Middle East" because it's never brokered peace in the Middle East. No one's every brokered peace in the Middle East because there is no such animal and one will probably not be coming along anytime soon.
Secondly, thank God, the Arab world doesn't see us as impartial anymore. Canada should not be impartial about the Middle East; rather it should demand an end to the theocracies, murderous intentions, brutal repression and misogyny that is rife throughout the Arab world.
Thirdly, the last country that should be talking about fostering peace is Saudi Arabia. Well, maybe not the last but close to the bottom, despite the ambassadors claim that the Saudis have played "a positive role" in the region. Saudi Arabia's sponsoring of crazy wahabbist thought, its funding of radical madrassahs in many countries, most particularly Pakistan, its utter contempt for women's rights and its spreading cash around to various terrorist groups is hardly an example of peaceable actions.
Lastly, there is nothing in the Roadmap for Peace that calls for palis to treat one another in any specific way. The Roadmap for Peace calls for a recognition of Israel and a cessation of terrorist activities against it. The internal palestinian conflict is not why the palis have been cut off from the international money trough nor should any short-term agreement in that regard change international opinion.
The Russians, of course, jumped all over this because Russia is busy trying to re-establish itself as the natural enemy of the western world while cozying up to every piece of shit thug out there. If another Beslan happens but it occurs in Israel or the US, the Russians won't mind...they'd even help pay for it.
So far, though, the other key European nations have held firm (a small miracle in itself) and Canada, the first country to cut funding after the election of hamas, has a government with no intention of indulging any arab fantasies.
The best Mr. Al-Sowayegh accomplished was to give a few readers a morning giggle. Which is likely why the Post editors agreed to print it in the first place. Its editorial slant is often quirky, humorous and self-deprecating so a little Middle East fiction fit in quite nicely.
According to Abdulaziz Al-Sowayegh, the Mecca Accord that saw the pali factions reach a deal not to slaughter one another in the streets anymore should be accepted by the world. Canada, particularly, he says, should accept it because our reputation as an "impartial peace broker in the Middle East" has suffered of late.
Well, to begin with, Canada has never been an "impartial peace broker in the Middle East" because it's never brokered peace in the Middle East. No one's every brokered peace in the Middle East because there is no such animal and one will probably not be coming along anytime soon.
Secondly, thank God, the Arab world doesn't see us as impartial anymore. Canada should not be impartial about the Middle East; rather it should demand an end to the theocracies, murderous intentions, brutal repression and misogyny that is rife throughout the Arab world.
Thirdly, the last country that should be talking about fostering peace is Saudi Arabia. Well, maybe not the last but close to the bottom, despite the ambassadors claim that the Saudis have played "a positive role" in the region. Saudi Arabia's sponsoring of crazy wahabbist thought, its funding of radical madrassahs in many countries, most particularly Pakistan, its utter contempt for women's rights and its spreading cash around to various terrorist groups is hardly an example of peaceable actions.
Lastly, there is nothing in the Roadmap for Peace that calls for palis to treat one another in any specific way. The Roadmap for Peace calls for a recognition of Israel and a cessation of terrorist activities against it. The internal palestinian conflict is not why the palis have been cut off from the international money trough nor should any short-term agreement in that regard change international opinion.
The Russians, of course, jumped all over this because Russia is busy trying to re-establish itself as the natural enemy of the western world while cozying up to every piece of shit thug out there. If another Beslan happens but it occurs in Israel or the US, the Russians won't mind...they'd even help pay for it.
So far, though, the other key European nations have held firm (a small miracle in itself) and Canada, the first country to cut funding after the election of hamas, has a government with no intention of indulging any arab fantasies.
The best Mr. Al-Sowayegh accomplished was to give a few readers a morning giggle. Which is likely why the Post editors agreed to print it in the first place. Its editorial slant is often quirky, humorous and self-deprecating so a little Middle East fiction fit in quite nicely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
