There has been a big controversy this week about some remarks George Bush made while addressing the Knesset on Israel's 60th anniversary. Bush said
"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said. "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
This was in the context of how World War 2 and the Holocaust manged to happen under the noses of the Western World. in no way do I think this relates in any way to Barack Obama. He is talking about the failed tactic of appeasement in history, and is talking about it in a general way. I really don't think Bush inserted a cryptic reference to Barack Obama in a speech before the Israeli Knesset. Of course if you believe that: Bush orchestrated 9/11, fought the Iraq War for Cheney and his friends in Halliburton, is a puppet for Karl Rove etc..., than it's not hard to believe he would do this. It is interesting to wonder why Obama got so defensive over a remark that wouldn't have been newsworthy had he not brought it up. Who knows? Maybe he realizes that his promised foreign policy isn't going to work and he's getting defensive.
Today I was reading an article about Obama and the Jewish vote and somebody started an article like this
"Some political attacks come in subtle forms, with a hidden, "dog whistle" message audible only to the voters who are supposed to hear it. And then there was President Bush's speech Thursday -- yes, the speech to Israel's parliament on the nation's 60th birthday in which he indirectly compared Barack Obama to both infamous appeaser-of-Hitler Neville Chamberlain and to a famous Nazi sympathizer." This is a very dishonest way to start an article as it ignores the debate that has gone on about these words.
A far more likely person that was being alluded to was Jimmy Carter, who spoke to Hamas on his last trip to the Middle East.
Others have also said that the Bush administration wants to talk to Iran and Hamas to so they're being hypocrites. This is a weak argument because there is a difference between a low lever bureaucrat in the state department talking to an Iranian official than Barack Obama talking to Ahmadinejad with no strings attached.
Plus-Does anybody think that Bush writes his own speeches?
Many have blasted John McCain for his vision of what the world will look like in 2013. Is his vision any more unrealistic to all the crud that Barack Obama is talking about. One could half accept that Obama will usher in the Messiah with all of his promises. McCain also had a good idea in his speech by saying that he would go before Congress to be questioned like the P.M does here in Canada. I think this would be a very good thing as it would allowed the public to see what's going on in the President's mind. Maybe if this had implemented before there wouldn't be so many crazy accusations running around.
The Supreme Court of California recently ruled that Gay marriage could be done there by a 4-3 vote. Many called it a historic day for Gay rights, but it got me wondering why the Supreme Court has the power to implement this. The legislature never passed a bill about this subject, and in 2000 a referendum for bringing in gay marriage failed 61-39. If the public is against this, what right does the court have to implement this? Recently in Canada the Supreme Court opposed a part of a crime bill that Harper planned to introduce. It will be interesting to see how much power courts will have in the next few years.
I soon plan on writing my highly opinionated view of Bush's presidency.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Sunday, May 11, 2008
The Lord's Prayer
Recently, Dalton McGuinty has said that the Legislature should stop saying the Lord's prayer before every session. He says that Canada is a multicultural society, and as a result a Christian prayer should not be said exclusively in Parliament. Some have suggested that different prayers should be said on alternate days, there should be a minute of silence, or a statement not invoking G-d should be made. I for one believe that the tradition of reciting the Lord's Prayer should continue. It has been said for the last 100 years, and reflects the fact that this country is founded under Judeo-Christian values, and we live in a dominion under G-d. The PC's have said that the prayer should continue and I hope that they are successful in their efforts.
I saw a similar story from a British newspaper which said that a British Airline has stopped serving meat, as not to offend Hindus who ride on the plane. They once again gave the usual shpiel that our community is multicultural etc... The worrying thing in both of these cases is that nobody has asked the government or airline to do this. They are basically ripping down our own traditions by their own accord.
How much farther will these decisions take us? No planes on Fridays or Saturdays (Sundays are fine because Christianity doesn't seem as important to the government as other religions), no pork on planes, anything not kosher, etc...
I hope that Dalton McGuinty, a product of Catholic schools, realizes how much his faith has inspired him, and reconsiders his bizarre proposal
I saw a similar story from a British newspaper which said that a British Airline has stopped serving meat, as not to offend Hindus who ride on the plane. They once again gave the usual shpiel that our community is multicultural etc... The worrying thing in both of these cases is that nobody has asked the government or airline to do this. They are basically ripping down our own traditions by their own accord.
How much farther will these decisions take us? No planes on Fridays or Saturdays (Sundays are fine because Christianity doesn't seem as important to the government as other religions), no pork on planes, anything not kosher, etc...
I hope that Dalton McGuinty, a product of Catholic schools, realizes how much his faith has inspired him, and reconsiders his bizarre proposal
Sunday, May 4, 2008
What's the big deal?
Recently, Obama and Hillary decided that they would go on FOX News, which is known to hold conservative views, and talk about their respective campaigns. This decision has infuriated many Democrats because there have been a sort of boycott against the network. They feel that Obama and Clinton are just doing this to get a few more votes, but are turning their backs on the party base. However, as I see it, Obama is running as a candidate who can cross party lines and come to compromises, yet the very same people voting for him don't want him to talk on FOX news? I really don't see how boycotting a network that is watched by millions of Americans helps to bring the country together. If Obama and Hillary really want to bring in change then there should be no problem in there actions. If these Democrats don't see the error of their ways, then the era of 'old politics' that they want gone won't be going anywhere fast.
Just as an aside, I don't see how Hillary's comments about destroying Iran can be called 'sabre rattling' as Obama put it. She said that if Iran NUKES Israel then they will be obliterated. Should there be any other response? I sure hope any other candidate would do the same thing.
Another aside. I hate it when (mostly) liberal bloggers say that the only reason that the Republicans win is because they play gutter politics. They say that if the debate was only about the issues then they would win every time. What are they trying to say about the general public in these articles? That anyone who votes Republican is a duped idiot? Note to these bloggers- lots of people believe in what the Republicans are saying, that's why they win so often. These bloggers answer the question of why many people think the Democratic party is elitist.
Just as an aside, I don't see how Hillary's comments about destroying Iran can be called 'sabre rattling' as Obama put it. She said that if Iran NUKES Israel then they will be obliterated. Should there be any other response? I sure hope any other candidate would do the same thing.
Another aside. I hate it when (mostly) liberal bloggers say that the only reason that the Republicans win is because they play gutter politics. They say that if the debate was only about the issues then they would win every time. What are they trying to say about the general public in these articles? That anyone who votes Republican is a duped idiot? Note to these bloggers- lots of people believe in what the Republicans are saying, that's why they win so often. These bloggers answer the question of why many people think the Democratic party is elitist.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Mr. Carter goes to Syria
As Jimmy Carter becomes more and more irrelevant, the more outlandish his behavior becomes. First he wrote a terrible book about Israel called "Peace, not Apartheid", which was poorly sourced and had little basis in truth. Now in his upcoming tour of the Middle East he plans to sit down with the heads of Hamas. Carter should be criticized from all sides for this morally reprehensible action. These people are terrorists with the blood of hundreds of innocents on their hands. This visit will give them a propaganda opportunity to legitimize their actions. I mean if Jimmy Carter will talk to them how bad can they be? Or maybe talking to Jimmy Carter makes them look desperate? His actions not only go against the mantra to never talk to terrorists, it also goes against Bush's foreign policy. This is simply unacceptable. A former president shouldn't directly go against a current president's policy. You had one term Jimmy, and now your supposed to let others run the show, that's how democracy works. Can one imagine the reaction if George Bush starts mucking around in foreign policy after he leaves office. The response would be huge, and so to should this be the reaction to Carter's trip. Israel should ostracize him (which they've started to do), and people should have second thoughts associating with him. I say that Jimmy should stick with something he's good at, such as peanut farming, or bringing back Billy beer.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Harvard Accomodation Debate
Recently, Harvard has decided due to complaints from Muslim women that they will set aside women only hours in the gyms, as the women were feeling uncomfortable working out in front of men. Many feel that this was a good idea, but in reality it is a very short-sighted decision. Harvard is a secular campus, not a religious one, and as a result women and men should be able to work out at the same time, and not be split due to religious reasons. When immigrants move to America they shouldn't push their cultural and religious practices on the surrounding population. These women knew what they were getting into when they decided to go to Harvard, and should live with the decision they made, rather than complain. One of the women said that Jews have a kosher section in the cafeteria, and this is basically the same thing, but it isn't at all. There isn't kosher hour in the cafeteria, when only Jews are allowed in to eat. They eat at the same time as everybody else, but just have their own small space. Imagine if Jews demanded to close the cafeteria while they ate, because they felt uncomfortable watching others eat pig. It would be seen as ridiculous and so is this whole debate. These women should either try to find a time where many don't work out or find a women's only club, of which I'm sure one is nearby. Others shouldn't have to suffer because of other's beliefs.
Aaron's blog also has to somewhat deal with this debate. He says that Westerners shouldn't tell others how to run their country, which is a valid point, so to should people with different values not tell others how to run their institutions.
Aaron's blog also has to somewhat deal with this debate. He says that Westerners shouldn't tell others how to run their country, which is a valid point, so to should people with different values not tell others how to run their institutions.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Fitna
Mr. D you should read my last weeks post, because this is an update on it
Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders has finally released his film about Islam, Fitna, and the reaction to it has been very interesting. Dutch Muslim leaders responded in a responsible way, by stating that in now way should there be a violent reaction to this film, and so far there has been little outrage except in a few Middle Eastern countries. Wilders is also supposedly pleased with the calm reaction to this film. Unfortunately the website that was hosting the film had to take it off its site, because, "Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature and some ill-informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, LiveLeak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove 'Fitna' from our servers." This is a very disturbing matter because free speech and open discourse shouldn't be taken away because of extremists.
Ban Ki Moon in my opinion acted in a very cowardly matter. He said, ""There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence," Ban said in a statement. "The right of free expression is not at stake here." For the sake of the free world I hope that the Secretary General can tell the difference between a film that is controversial and a film that promotes violence. And if Moon thinks that this film promotes violence, maybe he should comment on the daily propaganda in the Arab world which demonizes Israel and the Jews. Ban also said, "We must also recognize that the real fault line is not between Muslim and Western societies, as some would have us believe, but between small minorities of extremists, on different sides, with a vested interest in stirring hostility and conflict." Unfortunately, in much of Europe the majority of the Muslim community hasn't stood up and chastised their more extremist elements. If they fail to do this then Moon's statement holds no validity, because if there is no moderate voice then radical Islam can start to impose its will on Western values.
Overall Wilders made a very interesting film that only attacks radical Islam and not Muslims. It should continue to be discussed and debated in public, as it holds some important messages. Luckily, I found the film on Youtube, and it is well worth a 15 minute glimpse, although parts of it are quite disturbing.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge4xLb8736k&feature=related
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU70GqQCCRg
Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders has finally released his film about Islam, Fitna, and the reaction to it has been very interesting. Dutch Muslim leaders responded in a responsible way, by stating that in now way should there be a violent reaction to this film, and so far there has been little outrage except in a few Middle Eastern countries. Wilders is also supposedly pleased with the calm reaction to this film. Unfortunately the website that was hosting the film had to take it off its site, because, "Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature and some ill-informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, LiveLeak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove 'Fitna' from our servers." This is a very disturbing matter because free speech and open discourse shouldn't be taken away because of extremists.
Ban Ki Moon in my opinion acted in a very cowardly matter. He said, ""There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence," Ban said in a statement. "The right of free expression is not at stake here." For the sake of the free world I hope that the Secretary General can tell the difference between a film that is controversial and a film that promotes violence. And if Moon thinks that this film promotes violence, maybe he should comment on the daily propaganda in the Arab world which demonizes Israel and the Jews. Ban also said, "We must also recognize that the real fault line is not between Muslim and Western societies, as some would have us believe, but between small minorities of extremists, on different sides, with a vested interest in stirring hostility and conflict." Unfortunately, in much of Europe the majority of the Muslim community hasn't stood up and chastised their more extremist elements. If they fail to do this then Moon's statement holds no validity, because if there is no moderate voice then radical Islam can start to impose its will on Western values.
Overall Wilders made a very interesting film that only attacks radical Islam and not Muslims. It should continue to be discussed and debated in public, as it holds some important messages. Luckily, I found the film on Youtube, and it is well worth a 15 minute glimpse, although parts of it are quite disturbing.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge4xLb8736k&feature=related
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU70GqQCCRg
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Geert Wilders
Geert Wilders is a Dutch politician who is the creator and leader of the Party for Freedom, which holds 9 of the 150 seats in the Dutch Parliament. He will become a bigger name in the next few weeks because he plans to air a film called Fitna on the internet, which talks about the Koran. The film will supposedly be very critical of Islam, but Wilders has said that the documentary will be 100 percent based on what is written in the Koran, and how some of these things are used today. Wilders has been inspired to make this film because of the murder of Theo van Gogh, and the controversy over the Danish cartoons. He thinks that radical Islam is taking over his country and the world, and he wants it to be stopped. Many people in Holland don't want him to post this film, in fear that it will lead to deaths and rioting. Many Imams and terrorist leaders have called for a fatwa against Wilders, and say that this film will lead to violence. Despite this, I think that Wilders should publish this film even if it is controversial. His film doesn't go outside the realms of freedom of speech and expression. He should be able to publicize his views about radical Islam even if it will anger people. The Muslim community can react in a mature way and disprove his point, or completely overreact and prove him right. How Islam will be viewed in the world is completely up to the Islamic community, and their reaction to this film will be an indicator of how they can fit in with Western values.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Elliot Spitzer
Earlier this week it was revealed that N.Y Governor Elliot Spitzer was Client 9 in a prostitution ring called the Emperor's club. This came as a huge shock to everyone, as Spitzer was a lawyer who fought corruption, and even prostitution rings, in court. He ran his campaign on being a moral guy, and now the public feels betrayed by him. Spitzer promptly resigned, as I feel he should have, and was replaced by a blind African American, showing how well America can recover from such a bad thing with this historic first.
The N.Y Times broke the story, and it was quickly gobbled up by basically every Western newspaper. Sure Spitzer was the N.Y Governor and possible Presidential candidate, but did he really deserve the media spectacle that followed in the subsequent days. He and his wife were plastered on the front page of every newspaper. Columns discussing prostitution, Spitzer's life, and his wife's decision to stand by him were discussed in great detail. Then it was found out who the prostitute in question was, and the story took off even more. Papers devoted huge spreads of pictures from the women's Myspace and other modeling pictures.
This follows a larger trend of sensationalist journalism that is just aimed to make a buck. The presidential campaign has turned into allegations of racism, sexism, questions about personal lives, and smears on the candidate's integrity. I though that spreading gossips and hurtful things about people wasn't supposed to be a value to be had. Couldn't the Spitzer reporting have been a little bit more compassionate and understanding? Did he really deserve to be vilified in front of millions for his mistakes? I thought that we weren't supposed to judge others. As bad as what Spitzer did, the media also did a bad thing. If they stuck to reporting to real issues such as the genocide in Darfur, problems in Tibet, a balanced view to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, homelessness, and health care, America would be a much better place.
Mr. Dworkin, you missed my last weeks post
The N.Y Times broke the story, and it was quickly gobbled up by basically every Western newspaper. Sure Spitzer was the N.Y Governor and possible Presidential candidate, but did he really deserve the media spectacle that followed in the subsequent days. He and his wife were plastered on the front page of every newspaper. Columns discussing prostitution, Spitzer's life, and his wife's decision to stand by him were discussed in great detail. Then it was found out who the prostitute in question was, and the story took off even more. Papers devoted huge spreads of pictures from the women's Myspace and other modeling pictures.
This follows a larger trend of sensationalist journalism that is just aimed to make a buck. The presidential campaign has turned into allegations of racism, sexism, questions about personal lives, and smears on the candidate's integrity. I though that spreading gossips and hurtful things about people wasn't supposed to be a value to be had. Couldn't the Spitzer reporting have been a little bit more compassionate and understanding? Did he really deserve to be vilified in front of millions for his mistakes? I thought that we weren't supposed to judge others. As bad as what Spitzer did, the media also did a bad thing. If they stuck to reporting to real issues such as the genocide in Darfur, problems in Tibet, a balanced view to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, homelessness, and health care, America would be a much better place.
Mr. Dworkin, you missed my last weeks post
Monday, March 10, 2008
NAFTAGATE
There was a big backlash this week against the Conservatives this week, after it was found out that they might have contributed to Barack Obama losing in Ohio. Allegedly a leaked memo stated that a person on Obama's team had reassured the Canadian government that the U.S wouldn't re-open NAFTA, and this attack on it was just campaign rhetoric. This in turn has led to a scandal? Personally, I don't think Americans could care less about what a Canadian official has to say. Secondly, many news medias have been saying for the past weeks that Obama isn't serious about re-opening NAFTA, so it's not like this is some sort of revelation. Despite this many are mad at the government, because they "can't keep their mouths shut." Of course, it would make a lot more sense to keep tons of Canadians worried about the status of their jobs instead. It would make a lot more sense to let the presidential candidates trick the public about their positions. Many are saying this was a planned leak, because the Conservatives want John McCain to beat Hillary Clinton, but would Harper really jeopardize his tenuous hold on government by trying this sort of thing. The whole crux of this argument is the Liberals telling the Conservatives that," we want Obama to win, so how dare you tell the truth about what he is saying." I say if Obama is lying, then his beliefs are fair game.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
NY Times- All the News That's Fit to Print?
Earlier this year the NY Times endorsed John McCain as the best Republican candidate, but now that he de facto won the nomination they are pulling out some dirt on him. First they dredged up a rumour that he had an affair with a lobbyist that he is friends with. Their so called proof was a bunch of bitter former employees who had no evidence, but it still warranted a front page 2000 word story. McCain's response the next day was around 250 words, and was sandwiched in the back of the paper. I also read that in 2004 there were rumours that John Kerry had an affair, but they put this report way in the back, and it was only a small story. Then this week they made a big story about if McCain could even run for President, because he wasn't born in American, but on a military base. These articles have actually backfired, as they have solidified the Conservative base, who hate the NY Times more than McCain.
Come on NY Times, you're supposed to be the number one paper in the country. Do you really need to try to smear McCain so he doesn't become President? It would be nice to see a little bit more even-handedness when reporting the election. All of these candidates will be good for America, and although you can have your own personal opinion you should let everybody's voice be heard properly. Let's bring some integrity back into the media.
Come on NY Times, you're supposed to be the number one paper in the country. Do you really need to try to smear McCain so he doesn't become President? It would be nice to see a little bit more even-handedness when reporting the election. All of these candidates will be good for America, and although you can have your own personal opinion you should let everybody's voice be heard properly. Let's bring some integrity back into the media.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Democrats Winning=Disaster
As the Democratic campaign continues on and on and on, one key issue is never being talked about, and that is Iraq. Hillary, Barack and all of the other Democratic candidates said they will pull out of Iraq shortly after coming to office. This position could be considered viable a short time ago, but the times are changing in Iraq.
Recently Anthony Cordesman, a man who said in 2006 that there was no chance of Iraq becoming stable had this to say, "No one can spend some 10 days visiting the battlefields in Iraq without seeing major progress in every area. ... If the U.S. provides sustained support to the Iraqi government -- in security, governance, and development -- there is now a very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state." -- Anthony Cordesman, "The Situation in Iraq: A Briefing from the Battlefield," Feb. 13, 2008. Seized Al-Qaeda letters also said the Anbar awakening,"created panic, fear and the unwillingness to fight" . He describes how his force of 600 men turned into 20.The deaths of civilians and soldiers are going down. Sectarian violence is down, the economy is up, local leaders are starting to cooperate with the U.S and get rid of the terrorists. The situation is by no means perfect, but it also can't be said that it's so bad that the U.S can't possibly win.
Unfortunately, Joseph Lieberman says this is exactly what is going on, stating, "Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq." Their position is that since there hasn't been sufficient 'national reconciliation' the U.S.A has to go. Is this really a defensible position? Could the Democrats honestly expect that a country so divided could re conciliate on a national scale so quickly? Is that really a reason to send the troops home? It's working so far on a local level, and it will continue to do so on a national level, but it will take some time.
Charles Krauthammer asks,"Are the Democrats so intent on denying George Bush retroactive vindication for a war they insist is his that they would deny their own country a now achievable victory?" Let's hope that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton can take a brave stance on this issue, and bring change within their party base. The Iraqi people have said," Yes we can", can the Democrats?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/democrats_unwavering_in_the_fa.html
Krauthammer article
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3346386.ece
Al Qaeda going down the tubes
Recently Anthony Cordesman, a man who said in 2006 that there was no chance of Iraq becoming stable had this to say, "No one can spend some 10 days visiting the battlefields in Iraq without seeing major progress in every area. ... If the U.S. provides sustained support to the Iraqi government -- in security, governance, and development -- there is now a very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state." -- Anthony Cordesman, "The Situation in Iraq: A Briefing from the Battlefield," Feb. 13, 2008. Seized Al-Qaeda letters also said the Anbar awakening,"created panic, fear and the unwillingness to fight" . He describes how his force of 600 men turned into 20.The deaths of civilians and soldiers are going down. Sectarian violence is down, the economy is up, local leaders are starting to cooperate with the U.S and get rid of the terrorists. The situation is by no means perfect, but it also can't be said that it's so bad that the U.S can't possibly win.
Unfortunately, Joseph Lieberman says this is exactly what is going on, stating, "Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq." Their position is that since there hasn't been sufficient 'national reconciliation' the U.S.A has to go. Is this really a defensible position? Could the Democrats honestly expect that a country so divided could re conciliate on a national scale so quickly? Is that really a reason to send the troops home? It's working so far on a local level, and it will continue to do so on a national level, but it will take some time.
Charles Krauthammer asks,"Are the Democrats so intent on denying George Bush retroactive vindication for a war they insist is his that they would deny their own country a now achievable victory?" Let's hope that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton can take a brave stance on this issue, and bring change within their party base. The Iraqi people have said," Yes we can", can the Democrats?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/democrats_unwavering_in_the_fa.html
Krauthammer article
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3346386.ece
Al Qaeda going down the tubes
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Reply to Jared's post
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5856496821064177457&postID=5967950845249187079
I agree and disagree with Jared about several things in this article. Although I do believe that torture is legitimate in certain circumstances, I don't believe that if a country stops using it completely it makes them soft. On the other hand it's easy to see today the weakening resolve in the Western World, more so in Europe and Canada than the U.S.A. An excellent example of this attitude is seen when looking at the "war on terror." When things were looking bad in Iraq a lot of Americans wanted, and still want the troops to be pulled out. They say that we're losing to many innocent lives and fighting for nothing. They forget that the "great generation" who fought the world wars, lost exponentially more soldiers and the public knew how important it was to defend our freedoms. I think that the public today doesn't have this resolve anymore. As long as we have our luxuries we can sit back and wait till our freedoms erode.
In Afghanistan this can also be seen. Canada has lost 80 soldiers and are thinking about pulling out. Are you kidding me? Each life is important, but don't they realize that the spreading of freedom is also an important goal. Other countries in Europe are also unwilling to put their soldiers in combat situations, in fear of causalities. This of course is what soldiers are for, they're not supposed to be doing nothing. It seems that nobody wants to do the dirty work anymore and stop terror.
In future wars how many deaths will be seen as to much. 10,5,1, or should we just give in because we don't want to lose our lives. This attitude is summed up perfectly by Ehud (Sleazebag) Olmert, who said, " We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies, we want that we will be able to live in an entirely different environment of relations with our enemies." Can you imagine if Churchill had said this during the Second World War. Instead, he said,"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender".
This is all part of the Western World developing self-hatred towards itself. We are becoming ashamed of our history, by only looking at the bad. We see no value in our culture, and let others hijack ours. We give other religions and culture free reign as not to defend them. In Britain this week the Archbishop of Canterbury said it was inevitable that Sharia law would take hold in Britain, suggesting it can't be stopped. Where is the fight for our heritage, culture and our freedoms?
We can't get soft, we must stay proud.
I agree and disagree with Jared about several things in this article. Although I do believe that torture is legitimate in certain circumstances, I don't believe that if a country stops using it completely it makes them soft. On the other hand it's easy to see today the weakening resolve in the Western World, more so in Europe and Canada than the U.S.A. An excellent example of this attitude is seen when looking at the "war on terror." When things were looking bad in Iraq a lot of Americans wanted, and still want the troops to be pulled out. They say that we're losing to many innocent lives and fighting for nothing. They forget that the "great generation" who fought the world wars, lost exponentially more soldiers and the public knew how important it was to defend our freedoms. I think that the public today doesn't have this resolve anymore. As long as we have our luxuries we can sit back and wait till our freedoms erode.
In Afghanistan this can also be seen. Canada has lost 80 soldiers and are thinking about pulling out. Are you kidding me? Each life is important, but don't they realize that the spreading of freedom is also an important goal. Other countries in Europe are also unwilling to put their soldiers in combat situations, in fear of causalities. This of course is what soldiers are for, they're not supposed to be doing nothing. It seems that nobody wants to do the dirty work anymore and stop terror.
In future wars how many deaths will be seen as to much. 10,5,1, or should we just give in because we don't want to lose our lives. This attitude is summed up perfectly by Ehud (Sleazebag) Olmert, who said, " We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies, we want that we will be able to live in an entirely different environment of relations with our enemies." Can you imagine if Churchill had said this during the Second World War. Instead, he said,"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender".
This is all part of the Western World developing self-hatred towards itself. We are becoming ashamed of our history, by only looking at the bad. We see no value in our culture, and let others hijack ours. We give other religions and culture free reign as not to defend them. In Britain this week the Archbishop of Canterbury said it was inevitable that Sharia law would take hold in Britain, suggesting it can't be stopped. Where is the fight for our heritage, culture and our freedoms?
We can't get soft, we must stay proud.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Bombings in Baghdad
On Friday a double suicide bombing went off in a crowded Baghdad market, killing 60-100 people. Al-Qaeda took responsibility for this attack, but the even more disgusting thing is that they used 2 mentally handicapped women as the bombers. This is either showing that they are getting extremely desperate, or they are just willing to up the sheer brutality of what they're doing. Things have been getting better in Iraq recently, as more people are starting to cooperate with the U.S soldiers, and this just shows an even greater distinction between them and us. I'm hopeful that this attack will further strengthen the conviction of the Iraqi people, as they will be repulsed by this sick attack.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Situation in Gaza
It's been a pretty crazy week in Gaza so far. Earlier in the week Hamas shut down the power supply to Gaza and blamed it on Israel, even though ironically Israel sends them all of their food and gas supplies. They then played this up in the media by holding a candlelight cabinet session. Firstly, who holds cabinet sessions in the middle of the night. Secondly, if you look at the pictures you can see clearly see light through the curtains http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2008/01/darkness-at-noon-msm-plays-along-with-ha/
. I just don't see how newspapers can go along with these clearly staged photos. Then later in the week they blew a hole through the fence blocking them from Egypt. The world of course said this was because of Israel's recent blockade on them even though this plan had been going on for months. The media also went on about how the people were buying soda, candy, fruit, while never mentioning that probably some of the 700 000 people were bringing back in weapons, which is why they're being blockaded in the first place. This situation also made clear that the Egyptians want nothing to do with their Arab brethren. You have to feel bad for the innocent Palestinians who have been used as propaganda by the Arabs. Then today Iran said it would help Egypt clean up this mess. What a swell idea that would be. Let's allow the leading sponsor of terrorism to help 700 000 people get back into Gaza. Surely they won't let them bring back weapons. Israel really needs to pressure Egypt to get this thing under control, and it's in the best interest of the Mubarack regime to solve this if they want to hold onto power. Especially with the Winograd report coming out, Olmert doesn't want to look like a dunce on both sides of the border.If this whole situation wasn't so serious, it might even be comical what's going on.
. I just don't see how newspapers can go along with these clearly staged photos. Then later in the week they blew a hole through the fence blocking them from Egypt. The world of course said this was because of Israel's recent blockade on them even though this plan had been going on for months. The media also went on about how the people were buying soda, candy, fruit, while never mentioning that probably some of the 700 000 people were bringing back in weapons, which is why they're being blockaded in the first place. This situation also made clear that the Egyptians want nothing to do with their Arab brethren. You have to feel bad for the innocent Palestinians who have been used as propaganda by the Arabs. Then today Iran said it would help Egypt clean up this mess. What a swell idea that would be. Let's allow the leading sponsor of terrorism to help 700 000 people get back into Gaza. Surely they won't let them bring back weapons. Israel really needs to pressure Egypt to get this thing under control, and it's in the best interest of the Mubarack regime to solve this if they want to hold onto power. Especially with the Winograd report coming out, Olmert doesn't want to look like a dunce on both sides of the border.If this whole situation wasn't so serious, it might even be comical what's going on.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
SUPER BOWL XLII
After spending the last 20 Sundays, Mondays and sometimes Thursdays and Saturdays on watching football the Super Bowl is finally set. It will feature the 18-0 New England Patriots against Eli Manning's New York (Football) Giants. These teams met in week 17 with the Patriots winning 38-35 to cap off their unbeaten season. This promises to be an amazing game just like their last matchup. It's pretty disappointing that Brett Favre and the Packers couldn't make it to game, but they just didn't play well enough to win. Anyways it should turn out to be a great game with the potential for tons of history being made.
In other news things have heated up in Gaza this week. The IDF and Hamas have been exchanging blows with tons of bloodshed. Rightly, most of the world is calling for all this to end, but I propose that it ends by Israel taking the initiative. I think that they need to send in a large force to finally stop all of this rocket fire once and for all. It's shameful that a country won't even defend their people as they face constant barrages of rockets. If a major operation is carried out competently than maybe things will finally cool down for a bit. Considering that the release of the Winograd Report is due to come out soon it's in Olmert's best interest to please the country by attacking Gaza, then trying to hold on to this peace deal, which most of the country opposes. I hope that he acts swiftly in the next few days.
In other news things have heated up in Gaza this week. The IDF and Hamas have been exchanging blows with tons of bloodshed. Rightly, most of the world is calling for all this to end, but I propose that it ends by Israel taking the initiative. I think that they need to send in a large force to finally stop all of this rocket fire once and for all. It's shameful that a country won't even defend their people as they face constant barrages of rockets. If a major operation is carried out competently than maybe things will finally cool down for a bit. Considering that the release of the Winograd Report is due to come out soon it's in Olmert's best interest to please the country by attacking Gaza, then trying to hold on to this peace deal, which most of the country opposes. I hope that he acts swiftly in the next few days.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Free Speech under attack in Canada
Ezra Levant, founder of The Western Standard, is under trial for printing the Mohamed cartoons in his newspaper in 2005. He is not in a regular court of law, but is being put before a human rights commission, because he offended Syed Soharwardy, head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada. Knowing he wouldn't be able to beat Levant in a regular court of law, Levant is now forced in front of a one person commission which will decide if he will need to apologize. Besides taking away his freedom of speech, he is also being forced to pay for his defense, while his accuses pays nothing. The publishing of these cartoons could be considered offensive to members of the Muslim community, but they do not promote violence or hatred against them. It is simply an expression of freedom of speech and freedom of the press which has been part of our heritage since the Magna Carta. To take away this right through a government bureaucracy is wrong. These courts were initially set up to solve housing disputes, in which minorities lets say wouldn't receive an apartment due to a racist owner. The creator of these commissions has even said that they never intended matters of speech or thought to be taken before these courts. If Levant loses he will be forced to apologize, which he claims is Orwellian in nature, as they will be controlling what he does. In his opening comments he said that criminals aren't forced to apologize, but he should? This commissions in the past once forced a right wing Christian to pay reparations to a gay man who was offended by a newspaper comment in which he gave bible verses that said homosexuality was wrong. Levant properly speaks when he says that he is defending every true supporter of free speech and not just himself.
Mark Steyn, a N.Y Times best selling author is also going to be hauled in front of these courts in Ontario, due to Macleans publishing excerpts of his book, which offended some Muslim students at Osgoode Hall. Many of the claims they lay against him are completely unjustified and they are demanding that Macleans let them publish a rebuttal in the magazine which will over around 5 pages. Needless to say they disagreed. Stuff can offend you all of the time, it doesn't mean you can force people to go in front of these kangaroo courts. I wonder what these commissions response would be if I claimed that a book I read by a Muslim author offended me, or if I said some homosexual acts offended me because of my religious beliefs. I somehow think my complaint wouldn't receive the same attention. We must speak up now if we want to keep our basic freedoms.
You can go to ezralevant.com to see some clips of him before the commission and
marksteyn.com to read about his case
In response to Ezra Levant defending himself this "nice" facebook group has been made about him
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/007823.html
Mark Steyn, a N.Y Times best selling author is also going to be hauled in front of these courts in Ontario, due to Macleans publishing excerpts of his book, which offended some Muslim students at Osgoode Hall. Many of the claims they lay against him are completely unjustified and they are demanding that Macleans let them publish a rebuttal in the magazine which will over around 5 pages. Needless to say they disagreed. Stuff can offend you all of the time, it doesn't mean you can force people to go in front of these kangaroo courts. I wonder what these commissions response would be if I claimed that a book I read by a Muslim author offended me, or if I said some homosexual acts offended me because of my religious beliefs. I somehow think my complaint wouldn't receive the same attention. We must speak up now if we want to keep our basic freedoms.
You can go to ezralevant.com to see some clips of him before the commission and
marksteyn.com to read about his case
In response to Ezra Levant defending himself this "nice" facebook group has been made about him
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/007823.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)