Who’s helping Haiti

The earthquake in Haiti is a terrible tragedy…

It made me angry when I saw some deranged fanatics from several ‘leading’ religions had used it to further their religious propaganda:  Christian, Muslim (sorry – can’t find the link right now…) and AGW Warm-monger alike.  It just goes to show that the religious fundamentalists are pretty much alike, regardless of the specific religion:  whatever happens, they see is as proof that their particular set of beliefs is the absolute truth!

Nuts aside, it is great to see that ‘regular people’ are responding to the tragedy and helping.

Regardless of anything else, when something this bad happens, people from all over the world send help – and so it should be.

So, who is helping Haiti, and how much?

I came across this interesting chart on Dvorak Uncensored:

Interesting, isn’t it?

Support ‘One Law for All and Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain’

If you’ll be in London, UK, on the 28th of January, 2010, you might be interested in this (this is an email I received):

Hello,

As you know, working against Sharia and religious laws, or coming out publicly as an ex-Muslim to break the taboo that comes with renouncing religion (an act punishable by death under Sharia) is not easy in this day and age. We’ve managed to do quite a good job nonetheless, thanks in large part to the support of people like you. But there is much more to be done and we can’t do it without your financial support, however small.

If you haven’t already done so, one way you can support the work of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and One Law for All is to join the January 28 fundraiser dinner, which is only two weeks away. Tickets are still available so if you’re in London or can get here, please do try and come to the event. It is a good opportunity to support our important work whilst also enjoying a three-course dinner in an intimate environment.

The event’s keynote speaker will be AC Grayling, the renowned philosopher, author, writer, reviewer, and broadcaster. Comedian Nick Doody, Singer/Songwriter David Fisher and Magician Neil Edwards will also be there to entertain our guests.

To purchase a ticket(s) at £45.00 per person, you can either post a cheque made payable to One Law for All or CEMB to BM Box 2387, London WC1N 3XX or pay via Paypal: http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/donate.html or Worldpay: http://ex-muslim.org.uk/indexDonate.html. If you’re paying by cheque, please make sure you email us so we know to reserve a place for you.

If you can’t come to the event but would like to support us nonetheless, please send in a donation so we can cover the cost of the activities we have planned for 2010. These include a March 8 seminar on legal and legislative ways to get rid of Sharia and religious laws in Britain; an art gallery show in spring; a June 20 rally against Sharia and political Islam and in support of people resisting it everywhere; a December conference on apostasy and Sharia law and much more…

We hope to see you at the fundraiser event or hear from you about how you can help us with the important work that lies ahead.

Thank you for your continued support.

Best wishes,

Maryam

Maryam Namazie
Spokesperson
One Law for All and Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
BM Box 2387
London WC1N 3XX, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 7719166731
onelawforall@gmail.com
http://www.onelawforall.org.uk
http://www.ex-muslim.org.uk

Paying respects to Constable Czapnik…

Today is the funeral for Constable Eric Czapnik, an Ottawa police officer slain in the line of duty.



A sad and solemn procession, longer than the 2.3 km long route of the procession, makes its way from Carleton University to the Civic Centre on this chilly Ottawa day.

It was just one of those things…

Officer Czapnik was killed just outside the emergency room of the Civic campus of the Ottawa hospital – by another cop.  But, this RCMP police officer was not on active duty, following surgery for multiple brain tumors.  I doubt that this sort of thing can ever really be prevented!

The paramedics ran out to help Constable Czapnik, subdued and held the attacker while other paramedics fought to save the officer’s life.  Now, the Members 0f the Paramedic Services and  the Firefighters stand along side the members of Police, from all over North America, to send him of.

It’s times like these that we are reminded just how lucky we are…

Sincere condolences to his family.

Touching video…

Last night, I was lucky enough to see Brea Lawreson perform this song live – as well as to meet some of the people who helped make this video a reality.  It is very touching (OK – despite the fact I was actually wearing make-up, I could not help ‘tearing up’) – and, it is dedicated to ‘Military men and women everywhere’!

Hats off to John Dietsch!

A WWII hero, Mr. Dietsch proved he’s still a hero!

And, Mr. Gray is cut from the same cloth!

These veterans proved that they still ‘have it’.

Mr. John Dietsch (84 years strong) and Mr. Earl Gray (20 years his junior) had just finished counting some $10,000 in donations to their Legion (Oakridge Legion, Branch 73), raised with the Poppy Campaign.  A gunman walked in and tried to rob them.

The octogenarian vet – obviously a man who is not afraid to face evil – stood up to him, not even bothering to cower before the would-be-robber’s loaded gun.  What a man!

Simply said, the two veterans refused to be robbed.  Mr. Dietsch is quoted as saying:

“But nobody was going to get that money we had worked so hard to collect. It’s for the veterans and the widows and the community.”

And that is it, isn’t it?  It was not his money:  it was money to help the vets and the widows – his community!

To all those collectivists out there, who think that people must never act as individuals, of their own accord, because ‘the group/society/community’ has a monopoly on decision making:   see, here!  Individuals CAN work for the good of the community without sacrificing their individuality!

Two such individuals – Mr. Dietsch and Mr. Gray – refused to buckle and I, for one, salute them.

Thank you, gentlemen.

For protecting the money which will go to help those who need it and who have earned it.

And, for still being an example and role model to us!

 

Ottawa’s Mayor: NOT GUILTY!!!

Breaking news:  Ottawa’s Mayor, Larry O’Brien, has just been found NOT GUILTY of ‘influence peddling’ charges!

Of course, many voices have been screaming that this whole mess has been lawfare.  And, many people will now want to know why has the operation of the City of Ottawa been so seriously disrupted on a bunch of trumped up, unsubstantiated rumours.

As news stories on this appear, I’ll add links to this post to them.

The Canadian Press

The Globe and Mail

CTV

CBC

The Star

A chat with Lisa MacLeod

What interesting times we live in!

Tonight, Lisa MacLeod – the newly named Finance critic in Tim Hudak’s shadow cabinet – hosted a meet-and-greet with Tim Hudak.

It was very lovely.   Truly.

And while I spent most of my time talking with other attendees – especially with fellow immigrants to Canada – about our negative experiences with official Apartheid Multiculturalism policies (the latest honour dishonour killings made people – and not just us, immigrants – very, very angry), I did get to exchange a word or two with a few of the celebs there.

It’s been a very long day – and my stamina is still very low – so this will have to be a very brief post.  Yet, these little bits are well worth mentioning!

Mr. Pierre Poilievre was there and we exchanged a few words about the latest lawfare suit launched by one of ‘The Sock Puppets’ against Ezra Levant.  (Aside:  Wednesday, July 29th 2009, there will be an online fundraiser for Mr.Levant’s defense fund at Mark Steyn’s online store .  He is fighting this battle for all of us!  Thanks to BCF and 5’ofF for the tip!)

Then, I had a little chat with Lisa MacLeod, my host.  She was, well, to put it mildly, not impressed with what I have written about her in the past.  I can’t say I’m surprised, or that I blame her!  What can I say – she makes very lousy 1st impressions…which I did mention, unless I am much mistaken…

I must say that her reaction surprised me a little.  I was expecting her to be most upset by my criticism of her conduct as a politician…which we went into, very briefly.  Yes, the tention in the air was, as they say, palpable.

Still,  it was my criticism of her parenting that really, really upset her.  I must admit, I was not willing to  back down – I write what I see, as I see it;  no more, no less and I asked her if what I wrote was incorrect.  This seemed to upset Ms. MacLeod:  the anger seemed to dissipate and be replaced by a different kind of  ‘upset’.  That is good:  it showed me that beneath the ‘thick-skinned politician’ veneer (which I was so turned off by), there may be a truly genuine person who cares about the important things in life!

At this point, Ms. MacLeod excused herself and went  to watch her daughter play at the nearby playstructure.

Now, I am thinking that I may have been too quick to judge her:  that I fell for the image she tries to project (not one I would advise projecting) and failed to see the person behind it.  If she convinces me I was wrong about her, I’ll write about it.  

IF she convinces me!

WHY did the ‘Wafergate’ ever become ‘A Story’?!?!?

In my last post, I voiced the opinion that the whole non-story of ‘what Prime Minister Steven Harper ‘ought to have done’ when, during a Roman Catholic funeral mass, a priest approached him where he was sitting in the front pew of the church and stuck a Communion Wafer into the surprised Prime Minister’s hand’ might have actually increased the PM’s popularity.

Since that post, several people from outside of Canada (some Roman Catholic themselves) expressed a surprise that this would ever become a news event, much less one which dominated headlines for over a week.  Following is my reply (and can be seen in the comments) as to how and why this non-story got the press coverage it did:

The whole ‘broo-ha-ha’ – in my never-humble-opinion – started because the RC church was trying to deflect attention from yet another child molestation scandal within The Church.  The news of the scandal broke the same day as the RC clerics started screeching ‘damn the sinner – he offended our religion!!!!’ against the PM.  I think they wanted to minimize the news coverage of the pedophilia arrests charges laid against some RC priests just then.

The ‘MSM’ news these days has very clear ‘slots’:  this ‘slot’ for ‘human interest’, that one for ‘scandal’, a little bit on ‘business’, and so on.  If The Church succeeded in making the ‘PM snubs Roman Catholics’ THE scandal of the day, then there would be minimal coverage of their own scandal.  The ‘main slot’ would already be filled…  AND – they succeeded!

The news-people do not like this PM – he does not treat them as ‘insiders with special privileges’…. so, they are offended that he thinks they are not better than other people – which they DO think they are!

After all, they have ‘access to power’!!!!  At least, they HAD access to power….. until this ‘newcomer’ PM refused to treat them as royalty.  Who did he think he was?  They were here longer than he – they KNEW ‘the ropes’!  And he refused to bow down to them?!?!?  Let them ‘take him under their wing’ and ‘show him how to get things done’?!?!?  In exchange for ‘inside info’, of course… (and free spots at expensive dinners, and other ‘perks’ they became accustomed to by the previous corrupt government, in exchange for not writing up the worst of the scandals….)

How dare he!!!

As a result, the vast majority (with exceptions, of course) of journalists – especially political ones – feel slighted by him and do their best to snub him back, put him down, make even positive things he does – even the ones they themselves like – surrounded by so many ‘backhanded compliments’ that despite the positive story, they make him look bad.  Or, they try to!

The political opposition – well, they would really, really like something to attack him for.  But… for all his faults (and he has those, of course), deep down, Steven Harper is a very honest man and he expects honest behaviour from his ministers.  So, there is actually very little that he can be attacked for by the opposition politicians!

His opponents have believed that Steven Harper’s support came from the ‘religious right’.  So, they thought any story which could be spun that he is ‘not sensitive’ to religion or religious people would erode his main support base.

I think that they miscalculated!

Most religious people – including Roman Catholics – shared YOUR reaction.  The attack has backfired on BOTH the RC church AND the PM’s opponents!

Still, this was not really ‘about’ the Communion Host:  it was cheap politicking!  And that, I suspect, is ‘universal’….

‘Communion scandal’ improves Harper’s image

Perhaps this is obvious to everyone, perhaps it has been written about and I have missed it…

Did the ‘Communion scandal‘ actually improved Prime Minister Harper‘s image?  Is that, at least partially, why the polls are saying his popularity is up by 7 points (as per Angus Reid poll, reported on CFRA today)?

Let me explain my reasoning…

Steven Harper is a lot of things:  an awesome economist (and, in these turbulent times, most of us prefer to have an economist rather than a lawyer or an academic without any experience outside the College campus.).  That is a big plus for Mr. Harper.

But, his political opponents have always successfully exploited the fact that, for ever, Steven Harper will be associated (in the minds of most urban Canadians, especially those in Ontario and Quebec) with the ‘Evangelical’ taint his Reform Party past brings.  Rightly or wrongly, the Reform Party could not shake the kind of ‘Sarah Palin-type- thingy’ (please excuse the technical jargon…):  right on so many things, but, kind of scary when it comes to ‘faith issues’….

In some places, politicians are ‘expected’ to be ‘religious’:  it ‘proves’ to the ‘little people’ that they are ‘humble’ and ‘pious’….  This is still true of ‘US conservatives’ – at least, this is more true of them than any other Western ‘group’.

Why these ought to be good qualities in a political leader, I don’t know!

As a matter of fact, I seriously question whether people who are willing to put religious faith above facts and reason – and, especially above the will of voters – ought to be in any positions of power whatsoever.  After all, I would like the laws governing my country to be reasonable – not faith based!

Here, it is important to note that this ‘faith’ could be religious or ideological – it does not make an iota of difference in the practical impact of ‘faith-based’ laws on our society!

Though Canadians are very poor in recognizing ‘ideological faith, we are very sensitive to ‘religious faith’. Therefore, any suggestions that a politician might be so religious as to obey the tenets of his religion over the will of his constituents when drafting laws and policies harms that politician.  It makes it very unlikely that he/she would get a majority, because the large urban areas will not take what they perceive as that big a risk.

And, more and more Canadians are aware of just how many religious leaders abuse their power.  This is not specific to any one faith – one could easily find examples of abuse from just about every religious sect.  Rather, more and more people suspect that the fault lies in allowing any man or woman to exercise power over another, using spirituality as the ultimate weapon:  obey, submit, behave this way and believe this dogma – or you will suffer eternal torture…

That is why most organized religions in Canada are loosing members:  dogmatization of spirituality is becoming more and more unacceptable to urbanized, mainstream Canadians!  And that includes Canadians of all political bends…

When the Roman Catholic Church said that priests ought to deny ‘Communion’ to any politician who does not vote to ban abortion, there was a serious backlash against the Roman Catholic Church.  This was widely understood to be ‘spiritual blackmail’ of the politician:  threatening him/her with eternal damnation of his’her soul UNLESS he/she placed the Papist dogma above the will of their constituents!

The ‘little ‘l’ liberal’ Canadians are loath of any erosion in the ‘secularity’ of our laws: they will never support a politician whom they suspect of having a religious agenda!

Perhaps not surprisingly, there are more and more ‘non-religious’ ‘little ‘c’ conservatives.  People who do support many core conservative values, but who are very uncomfortable with the ‘religious’ component of today’s Conservative movement.  Very, very, very uncomfortable!

Just remember John Tory!

Steven Harper – with all his good and bad points – had a problem shaking the ‘religious’ image of the old Reform Party.  And his political opponents exploited it very, very skilfully.

Now, to this ‘Communion scandal’:

Some Roman Catholic Cleric attacked Steven Harper for his conduct during a Catholic funeral mass which Steven Harper attended.  It would appear that the priest walked up to the people sitting in on the benches in the church.  Steven Harper offered him a hand for a handshake – that is what politicians do, they shake hands as a symbol of greeting or acceptance or a number of other things.

The priest, instead of shaking the offered hand, stuck a communion wafer in it.

Now, the PM was ‘damned if he did/damned if he did not’ do just about anything.

Had he rejected the wafer and tried to give it back to the priest, he would be committing a grave offense:  he would be ‘rejecting Jesus himself’!

Had he tried to minimize damage by pocketing the damned thing and giving it back to the priest later, he would create horrible offense:  one does not ‘stick Jesus in a pocket’!

And, had he committed ritual cannibalism and eaten the ‘literal flesh of Christ’ – as Roman Catholics believe they are doing when they consume a Communion Wafer – he would be giving great offense because non-Roman Catholic Christians are not allowed the salvation which eating the flesh of a dead guy is supposed to bring, according to the RC dogma.

The PM took the latest option.  And, was immediately attacked for not being a fine young cannibal!  A bunch of RC clerics attacked him, for ‘offending their faith’ – while not saying a peep about the latest child sex-abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church became public that day!

Steven Harper’s political opponents – seeing an opening to attack – made the most of the story.  The one about the PM accepting a communion wafer – not the one about more RC priest pedophiles.  They ‘shouted it from the rooftops’!  They got it into all kinds of papers, so no Canadian could remain unaware that Steven Harper is insensitive to religion!

Wait a minute!

Steven Harper was trying to shake the ‘he’s too easily influenced by religion’ image – especially among the urban folk.  And now, his opponents are announcing to everyone that Steven Harper is not religious enough???

What an effective way to allay those fears of people who liked him, but worried he might be a religious freak!  He’s just a normal guy, after all!

No wonder that Steven Harper’s popularity went up!

‘THE’ question about Michael Jackson: was he a castrato?

I hardly ever follow ‘pop culture’:  as in, what the latest celebrities are doing, and so on.  Heck, I don’t even know who the latest celebrities are!

But it has been just about impossible to escape the recent ‘Michael Jackson’ media frenzy.  I must say, I was rather baffled by the amount of publicity this guy’s death and funeral/memorial generated.

Even usually sane talk-shows waded into these waters.

And people were calling in!!!  Ratings went up!!!  Curious…

SOOOOO much was being said…  And no matter where I tuned in, I could not escape some MJ coverage.

These are the things I heard people say about Michael Jacksom.  I don’t know how true they are… But, they were said by many different people, and seem to be ‘accepted’ as ‘general background’, and even a simple search of the internet will get lots of hits about these claims:

  • Michael Jackson had the mind of a 12-year-old boy – he never really grew up mentally. This is something I did not hear before – and the trigger for my ‘chain of reasoning’.
  • Michael Jackson hated his father.  His father, Joseph Jackson, was mentally and physically abusive of him (actually, he admitted abusing of all of his children).
  • Michael Jackson was so afraid of his father, that he would vomit upon seeing him (that is what he said in the famous Oprah Winfrey interview).  Just how horrible was the thing Joseph did to Michael, to evoke a response this extreme?
  • Some people have even gone so far as to suggest that Michael Jackson’s many plastic surgeries were a direct response to his father’s abuse as well as an attempt to be as different from his father as possible.
  • Joseph Jackson was (and still is) obsessed with becoming a ‘part’ of the music business:  he did not balk at using fear, intimidation and physical violence to force his children to practice and to perform…. When he lost control over Michael Jackson and his career, he still found ways to exploit his son’s fame for his own profit (behind Michael’s back) – and has really been cashing is since his famous son’s death.  He’s even voiced ideas about getting Michael Jackson’s kids on-stage, now that Michael is dead…

Add to this:

  • Michael Jackson had build himself a residence that was part amusement park – and called it ‘Neverland Ranch‘.  It was named for the place where Peter Pan lived:  a place where boys who cannot grow up live…
  • He also had a series of inappropriate relationships with boys – about 12-year old ones, to be precise.  While some people think these relationships were Platonic (in the true sense of the word:  sex between males), others claim them to have been platonic (as the word is currently popularly used:  an asexual relationship).  Either way, it is not ‘normal’ for an adult male to ‘best relate’ to pre-teen boys and to actively seek friendships with them in the manner Michael Jackson did.
  • Michael Jackson’s children are not biologically his.  They were conceived through artificial insemination, using sperm from a donor.  (OK, there were times he claimed otherwise – but this has since been shown to be false.)
  • During a ‘normal’ man’s life, his body changes proportions.  Of course, there are individual variations: these changes are more noticeable in some men than in others.  Still, most men – once they hit puberty – exhibit some physical changes, and not just in their genitals.  The chin (can’t tell with MJ’s surgeries…), the hands, the Adam’s apple, the chest/shoulders, and so on.  Still, Michael Jackson’s body retained the proportions of a pre-teen boy, including the flexibility needed for his famous dancing style.
  • If you listen (or, are forced to listen) to Michael Jackson’s singing, his voice does NOT sound like the voice of a grown man.  It is unusually high…

Do you see where this is leading?  Is THE QUESTION ‘jumping out’ at you? I find it unavoidable!

Was Michael Jackson a castrato?

Did his father (the man who did not shrink from violence to force his children to perform, and who, for his whole life, has been obsessed with being ‘in the music business’) think his young son’s voice was too precious to loose to puberty?

Did Joseph Jackson arrange to have Michael ‘altered’, so his voice would never change?!?!?

Have a listen to the only known recording of a true castrato voice here.  You can just about hear the same voice belting out:  “Billy Jean is not my lover…”

So, what do we know about the castrati ad their lives?  (Castrati are different from eunuchs, who are castrated after the onset of puberty.)

  • There are colourful tales of the ‘castrati of the past’ and their various sexual ‘quirks’…
  • Typically, castrati have long, slim limbs and retain unusually high levels of flexibility….
  • And, of course, there is that legendary castrato voice:  it is not the voice of a child – it does undergo some changes.  Still, it does not sound like the voice of a grown man, nor that of a woman, but is said to have the best qualities of all three, enchanting audiences with its universal appeal.

And what does science have to say about this?

  • At the onset of puberty (10-12 years of age, for most boys), the release of testosterone into their bodies actually causes a physical re-arrangement of the brain.  (There is a similar effect on female brains, due to the release of estrogen.)
  • Anyone who reads ‘Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology’ will certainly recall Volume 26, No. 3-4, which includes:  ‘Pubertal hormones organize the adolescent brain and behavior’:

“…  Converging lines of evidence indicate that adolescence may be a sensitive period for [testosterone/estrogen] steroid-dependent brain organization and that variation in the timing of interactions between the hormones of puberty and the adolescent brain leads to individual differences in adult behavior and risk of sex-biased psychopathologies.” (The emphasis and [insert] were added by me.)

Peter Pan, after whom Michael Jackson named his ‘dream home’, lived in a place where young boys could not grow up – even if they wanted to.  They had to leave ‘Neverland’ in order to grow up… but, perhaps, Michael Jackson did not have the choice to leave – perhaps he was stuck there, for ever.

I ask again:  is it possible that Michael Jackson was a castrato?