Who will dominate the emerging cultural hegemony?

Recently, I have been re-reading a book by Eduard Storch called ‘Minehava’: in it, the history teacher/anthropologist turned author explores how and why early European tribal peoples turned from matrilinear societies into patrilinear ones.  Since his books targeted about the same age-group as Lois Lowry’s ‘The Giver, the explanations are a ‘little simplified’.  But, the basics are there:  population growth leads to greater population density, more ‘intercultural contact’ leads to increased need for resources, assuring survival of the culture more willing to assert its dominance…

It got me started thinking about just how great a societal uphaval the change must have been.  The adjustment to the expectations of the new social order must have been significant.

Now, we are also going through a bit of ‘societal upheaval’.

Of course, things are more complex now:  the larger a human society is, the more complex ‘running it’ becomes.  And, the ‘societal upheaval’ we are undergoing now is also much more complex.  Yet, deep down we know that it is nothing less than the beginnings of the integration of all humans into one, global culture.

Let’s face it – that is what is happening.  Whether we jump on the bandwagon quickly and work towards an integrated political system (world government) or not, the ease and speed of communication and immigration means that human societies throughout the world are indeed in the early stages of global cultural integration.  (The economic bit had started quite a while ago…)

So, how will this play out?

Will the ‘best’ values and cultural practices ‘win’?

We could have a long and heated debate on what ARE the ‘best’ values and cultural practices – and not come to an agreement. (Actually, a brawl is a more likely outcome…over the internet, a vitrual brawl, but brawl none-the-less!)  Yet, that debate would be mute.  Because THAT is not the deciding factor for selecting the dominant factors in our emerging cultural hegemony…

Throughout human history, we have seen that it is not the ‘wise’ whose opinions are followed – perhaps for a little while, but not in the long run.  Nor is it the ‘numerous’. And, let’s not even raise ‘the voice of reason’:  it only alienates the ‘unreasonable majority’!

Instead, it is those who are the ‘loudest’ whose voices dictate the course of human history!

Those who are the most stubborn, uncompromising and who are willing to drown-out all competing voices (regardless of how ruthlessly) – THOSE are the voices which always (eventually) come to dominate any dialogue – and it is THEY who eventually succeed in having their own values and practices imposed on the whole of society as the cultural ‘norms’.  Just look around!

Can we do anything to ensure that our voice – the voice of those who espouse freedoms of thought and speech, the voice which respects each individual – can we do anything to make sure that THAT voice is not drowned out?  That it is not silenced forever, destined to be nothing more than a footnote in the histry about ‘extinct cultures’?

I don’t know.

It may be too late.

And even if it were NOT too late, I don’t know if this voice would even stand a chance.  After all, when one’s very principles require one to treat others as equals – only to be treated (according to thier principals) back as an inferior – that tends to limit one’s ability to achieve ‘things’ (like, say, the survival of one’s ideas and ideals).

(I know I am expressing this poorly, sorry – I just don’t know how to say it better!  What I mean is that just like a person who will not use violence, even in self-defense, does not stand a chance of survival against a gang of those intent to do violence to her, so the voice which will not silence others will have little chance to be heard over the noise raised by its opponents who have no such scruples.  And, losing these ‘scruples’ would be to stop being that voice…)

So, what CAN we do?

Very little.

Aside from shouting as loudly as we can, without inhibbiting anyone else’s ability to shout, the only thing we can – and MUST – do is to teach people, especially young people, to question.

To question EVERYTHING.

Yes, it is not much.  And, it can be trying (yes, I AM raising a teenager!).  But teaching people to question everything:  from political correctness to their own views – secular, religious or whatever… from science to cultural practices, from teachers and parents to their friends – that is what will teach them to evaluate for themselves which ideas and ideals are worthy of keeping, and which are not.

And THAT is teaching them to exercise the freedom of thought!

I cannot think of any weapon that would be more powerful.

Which brings me to my last question:  can we arm enough young people with this weapon to make a difference?

I don’t know….  But, I’ll die trying!

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Mischief or malice: laser attacks on airplanes

Lasers are awesome!

While we are all familiar with red laser pointers, there is a new generation of easily available, green lasers.  Their beam penetrates much farther and they are much brighter than the tired old red ones.

For example, even this little green laser pointer has a range of over two and a half kilometers (about 2 miles).

And, this ad for a green laser claims it is 60x brighter than the ‘old’ red laser pointers.

And that does not even take into account the fact that the human eye is much more sensitive to light in the blue-green wavelengths than to light in the red end of the spectrum.

All of this, put together, should not be a bad thing,  ‘should’ being the operative word here….

It turns out that some people – for whatever reasons – are using good things for bad purposes.  Surprised?

With the easy availability of long-range, powerful green lasers, some people are shining them into the cockpits of airplanes trying to land at airports.

If this is done by silly people as a prank, it’s not funny.  Airplanes are not LOL cats!

Yet, this is an ‘easy’ form of sabotaging airplanes for any group of people who deem themselves above the laws of our society and callous enough to take human lives to further their ends.  Especially in heavily concentrated urban areas – like ones where many airports are located in – the potential for destruction is enormous.

Which begs the question:  what are we going to do about this?

And, please, don’t say ‘ban the lasers’ – banning things is just not a solution to anything.  It is a band-aid at best, because it ignores the underlying problem.  We have got to stop kidding ourselves that addressing the symptoms of a problem, without solving the underlying problem, will fix ‘stuff’.

Than always makes things worse in the long run.

Islamist Khaled Mouammar got to select Canada’s immigrants

In today’s National Post, John Ivison has an interesting piece of information:

It’s well known that the president of the Canadian Arab Federation recently called Jason Kenney, the Minister of Immigration, a “professional whore” for supporting Israel and criticizing the presence of Hamas and Hezbollah flags at a recent protest, prompting Mr. Kenney to say he would review the CAF’s federal funding.

But it is less well known that Mr. Mouammar spent the 11 years prior to February, 2005, sitting as a member of the Immigration and Refugee Board, deciding whether refugee claimants from such North African countries as Morocco, Egypt, Algeria and Somalia should be allowed to stay in Canada.

Is this true?

If so, we are in deeper trouble than we realized.  I’d like to write more right now, but – I am speechless!!!

(P.S. – ‘Islamist’ does not equal ‘Muslim’. Mr. Mouammar may be an ‘Orthodox Christian’, yet he supports and actively works to promote the interests of militant, political interpretation of Islam:  that makes him an Islamist.)

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

A glimpse at Ignatieff’s senior advisor

Warren Kinsella is an interesting figure in Canadian politics – especially these days.

He became  somewhat known when Paul Martin ended the Chretien reign over Canada:  most of us first heard his name when Judge Gomery’s enquiry into the ‘Sponsorship Scandal’, aka ‘Ad-Scam’, (where millions of taxpayer dosslars were channeled for ‘promotional work’ to some very specific ‘advertizing firms’), liberally used his name in the report, especially when he talked about ‘inappropriate behaviour’.  Yet, most people (the political junkies excepted) never bothered to remember his name – he was just a shadowy figure of the Chretien regime.

Needless to say, the Martin Liberals tried to distance themselves from Ad-Scam and any people tainted by it.  The rivalry between the ‘Chretien camp’ and ‘Martin camp’ was large and deep – and it ripped the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) apart.  Though it happened years ago, some of the effects of this deep split are still shaping the internal politics of the LPC.

Mr. Kinsella dissappeared from the federal scene at about the time Mr. Martin’s people began to displace some of the Chretien loyalists – which, co-incidentally, is also when Mr. Martin began purging the LPC of any people tainted by several of the more serious Chretien-era scandals.  Mr. Kinsella was heard from only when criticizing the Martin Liberals.

Mr. Kinsella next reappeared on the Ontario provincial scene.  He got quite a bit of press attention when, as an advisor to the Ontario Liberals,  he suggested that Lisa MacLeod – who was running as a Conservative for a seat in the Ontario 2007 election – would be better off baking cookies…  How ‘liberated’ a view of women this guy has!

That was when his name became more widely known – at least, among Ontarians.

The Liberals won that election.  Though, I doubt that this was due to any strategizing by Mr. Kinsella.  Rather, it would be more accurate to say that the Conservatives lost the election – despite the Liberals and their record.  The Conservative leader, Mr. Tory, had demonstrated beyond any doubt that he is either too stupid or too corrupt to be a leader of Ontario.  Even I could not vote for any party headed by that bafoon – and I never will.

(Aside:  Mr. Tory failed to win his own seat in the 2007 election and is only now running in a by-election to win one.  I hope he looses, because if he wins, it will mean that the Ontario Liberals will continue their destructive reign.  And, as long as she continues to support Mr. Tory, I cannot, in good conscience, cast my vote in favour of my MPP, Lisa MacLeod… even though I rather like her otherwise!)

Now that Mr. Ignatieff (Iggy) has become the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC), it looks like some of the Chretien folks are back ‘in’.  This includes Mr. Kinsella, who is said to have been specifically selected to ‘run Mr. Ignatieff’s war room’.  Whatever the title of his position, Mr. Kinsella is said to be in a position of influence, that he ‘has Iggy’s ear’.

Either as part of his political life, or in a separate role, Mr. Kinsella has been very active in other ways, as well.  He has started his own blog. Unfortunatelly, his blog is a continuous source of embarassment to the LPC.  Not that long ago, Mr. Kinsella was forced to issue a SECOND appology – after the snarky tone of his first ‘apology’ created an international incident – for referring to Chinese food as ‘barbecued cat and rice’…

And, watching the ‘Question Period’ today (2nd of March, 2009), I just heard a question which implied that Mr. Kinsella had now criticized Native Canadians and their traditional way of life!  Is there no minority group in Canada safe from this man’s bigotry?

Yet, in my never-humble-opinion, Mr. Kinsella may have a skin too thin to happily survive in the blogosphere.  It is a bit of an open secret that Mr. Kinsella has a vendetta against Kathy Shaidle – the ‘grande dame’ of Canadian conservative blogosphere (whatever her faults may be – that is what she is).

Ms. Shaidle is everything Mr. Kinsella is not.

So, aside from the numerous lawfare actions Mr. Kinsella has taken against members of what he perceives as the conservative blogosphere, Mr. Kinsella has paid special attention to Ms. Shaidle.  So fierce is his pursual of her, one might wonder is he is a rejected suitor…

For example,when TVO’s star program, The Agenda with Steve Paikin had invited Ms. Shaidle to be a guest on their show regarding ‘The Atheist Bus Campaign’, Mr. Kinsella had greatly embarassed himself by sending emails which appear to contain threats against ‘The Agenda’ and Mr. Paikin should they fail to ‘uninvite’ Ms. Shaidle…

Another example:  when the Canadian Jewish Congress had recently invited Ms. Shaidle to participate in a tour of Israel (along with another blogger, Kate MacMillan), Mr. Kinsella has so publically opposed it, he has harmed his relationship with the CJC.  Blazing Catfur has the scoop on this one: and her sourses have, in the past, been highly reliable!

These are emails said to be between Mr. Kinsella and a member of the CJC (Bernie Farber is said to be copied on this email exchange).  These emails closely resemble Mr. Kinsella’s ’email style’ – and would appear to have some rather direct threats against the CJC should they ‘uninvite’ Ms. Shaidle and Ms. MacMillan from the proposed tour of Israel.  Powerful stuff!!!

I recommend that you read the email exchange yourself – here – and judge for yourself.

Explosive stuff!

Which begs the question:  Mr. Kinsella does not appear to use ‘veiled threats’ – or, very direct ones (he threatened to sue 2 Conservative MP’s in just the last week)…. so, exactly what DOES he know that is preventing the Ignatieff people from ridding themselves of this liability?

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

“All depressions are caused by government interference.”

A piece of pie to everyone who knows who said this!

Here is a clue:  she called for the separation of The State and The Economy.

And, her words – spoken in 1959 – are applicable today.  Please, sit back and enjoy this Mike Wallace interview with Ayn Rand:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

“…she should sue Angelina Jolie!”

OK, so this video has absolutely nothing to do with my post – I just thought it was funny.  Yet, perhaps… it DOES set the ‘right mood’!

It is not often that I mention ‘tabloid stuff’ here, but – well, this one just bewilders me.

Now, some people think I am just a little bit opinionated.  Hard to believe, I know, but, some people…  I do, however, have some very strong opinions about ‘babies’, children and that whole parental responsibility to ensure the best possible chance of success for their kids.

And, I do – at times – get a little ‘worked up’ when I see people doing patently stupid stuff that will damage their kids for ever.  Possessing an industrial dose of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, I did what anyone who intended to reproduce does (or, perhaps I should say ‘ought to do’):  I read anything and everything possible to make sure I did things ‘right’.

Perhaps that is why I now know that my opinions are right!!!

For example, I did not partake of alcohol (except once, with a non-drinker recording my reactions for my reference…it is important to know one’s own reaction to a potentially addictive substance) at all before I had my kids – and, of course, while pregnant and nursing.  There were not too many studies on this, but – since alcohol decreases the blood’s ability to carry oxygen, this could potentially affect the development of my eggs long before I ever got pregnant.  Therefore, I chose to avoid that risk.

I paid close attention to my choice of husband:  he had to have complementary genetic traits to mine, high intelligence, good looks (the kids had to get THAT from ONE of us), and he had to come from an affectionate family so that his nurturing instincts would be properly developed for potential parenthood.  Selecting the best potential father for one’s kids is not an easy task, but I got lucky – I found the perfect one!

I read research, read texts and articles, searched through statistics for such things as ‘age of mother vs. mean IQ’, nutrition (depriving an infant of breastmilk will reduce a person’s potential highest IQ by about 10 points – and LaLeche League volunteers will share their breastmilk with mothers who cannot breastfeed), early developmental needs, amount of skin-on-skin contact, stimulus levels… well, the list is rather long.  Anything I could think of  or that I learned could be a factor, I educated myself on.  You get the picture…

And this is just simple ‘due diligence’!  Something I thought every potential parent did – perhaps not as obsessively as I had, but, did none the less.  Get educated, establish a stable social unit with sufficient economic security, get the nest ready – and only when things are ready, bring a child into this world!

Today, I went grocery-shopping with my older son.  Yes, we both get a kick out of packing the groceries into the cart in the most space-efficient manner, then from organizing the groceries on the belt that leads to the cashier ‘just right’ – and today, we got told off for ‘overloading’ it… too much of a good thing, I guess.  As we hung our heads in shame, we could not help seeing this  Octomom’s picture all over the tabloids near the cash…

Just thinking about what this creature is doing to her children floods my blood with dangerously high levels of adrenaline!!!

OK, so she had 6 kids at once.  There is no way these 6 babies got sufficient room/nutrition in the womb to reach their fullest developmental potential.  It’s a simple matter of demand being greater than a single womb can supply!  But, well, these things CAN happen… and, though I do not agree with artificially setting up a pregnancy like this, I also understand that IF this happens to someone – they simply cannot harm the fetuses, and so they carry through.  I get it.

But, looking after 6 little ones is hard!  It would be a full-time job for several adults!

Then, to go and do it AGAIN???  With 8 more babies???

Yet, this is not the worst of it.  Not only did she do nothing to ‘prepare the nest’, this creature spent tens of thousands of dollars on breast implants (so much for nursing!) and plastic surgeries to make her face look more like Angelina Jolie’s!  That has to be some unhealthy obsession this scary woman has…

My son watched my fury at her irresponsibility, then laughed and (mock seriously) said:

“I’m surprised she has not started to think that she should sue Angelina Jolie!  Obviously, all this only happened because Angelina Jolie is so beautiful, successful – and an excellent mom.  She’s too perfect!  If she weren’t so awesome, this poor woman would not need to go to these lengths in order to stop feeling inferior!  So, you see, in the end, this is all Angelina Jolie’s fault!”

This would be way more funny… if it was not actually likely to happen!

Stray thoughts…

This is a bit of an unusual post for me… I would like to simply put forth a few ‘stray thoughts’ which have been occurring to me, yet none of which is really significant enough for a separate post of its own. I don’t necessarily have a formed opinion on them – answers, if you will – but that does not mean that the thoughts are going away.

If you can add something to them, please, do so – I will welcome any ‘food for thought’!

***

In the little clip of the ‘Harper Fox interview’ which I heard this morning, Mr. Harper described Canada as having ‘universal health insurance’. This, of course, is not the same thing as having ‘universal health care’. Is this a signal that things are going to get better in our health care delivery?

***

After all, things could not get much worse…

This morning, Ottawa’s ‘Medical Officer of Health’, Dr. Kushman, was interviewed on the radio station CFRA regarding the ‘long waits for MRI’s in Ottawa.  While in the Ottawa region, the average wait for a diagnostic MRI is ‘only’ somewhere around 270 days, at The Ottawa Hospital, this wait is a full 360 days.

This means that if you have a medical problem serious enough for your family doctor or your specialist to requisition an MRI, it will take about a week short of a year for you to actually get one.  This includes the times when your doctor thinks you may have had a stroke, or a malignant tumour – as well as serious injuries to your back, neck or just about any other reason an MRI would be ordered.  The only way to shorten the wait time is – according to my family doctor – to go to the emergency room while experiencing externally visible symptoms (like of a stroke).  And, while the wait times in some emergency rooms in Ottawa are currently as long as 30 hours, this is better than dying on a waiting list.  (This is, of course, assuming that you could survive in the waiting room for that long.  People have been known to die of heart attacks, miscariages and appendicitis while in The Ottawa Hospital emergency waiting rooms.  But, that is not the point here….)

And, getting the test is just first step… about a year ago, I had a test (not MRI) done at The Ottawa Hospital.  It took eight and a half months after the test was done for me (and my doctor) to actually receive any results of the test from them…

My point here is the response Dr. Kushman gave during the interview:  big part of the problem, he said, lies with doctors who just rely on MRI’s as their diagnostic tool (sic!).  He specifically said that for many musculo-skeletal injuries, the treatment consists of time, anti-inflammatory drugs and physiotherapy.  Yet, he lamented, many physicians persist on sending their patients for an MRI to be diagnosed for the type of musculo-skeletal injury they had suffered, thus overloading the system.

His implication was clear – the backlog is caused by the abuse of the system by physicians who send people to be tested ‘frivolously’.  You know, with back problems and whiplash and such…

Now, let me re-iterate what he said:  MANY of the …..injuries….CAN be treated….

The point is clear:  NOT ALL!!!  SOME injuries will be untreatable using the ‘standard’ method – and not treating them properly right away will result in permanent disability.  (Ask any MD – I did!)

Yet, without the diagnostic capability of the MRI, the doctors cannot tell which injuries fall into the ‘many’ category, treatable by the ‘standard’ method, and which are serious enough to require other interventions.

I present to you that while the ‘good’ Dr. Kushman did speak the literal truth (i.e. ‘MANY of the musculo-skeletal injuries are easily treated in the ‘standard’ way’), he implied the opposite of the truth in his conclusion:  instead of commending the MDs who use a diagnostic tool in order to separate the injuries treatable by the ‘standard’ method from the ones that need other, immediate attention, he implied that taking proper medical precautions is, in some way, an abuse of the system … and the direct cause of the backlog in the wait for an MRI!

Frankly, I find his attitude outrageous, offensive – and very dangerous.  To my health – and to that of all us poor souls within his jurisdiction!

How come he was still the ‘Medical Officer of Health’ by the end of the day???

***

OK – an unrelated thing…

When America’s President, Mr. Obama, was in Ottawa last week, he had a little chat with our Governor General (GG), Mikael Jean.  The head of the government of the United States of America and the head of the State of Canada speaking together:  very statesman-like, even if they did look like they giggled.

Did not Mr. Obama come out saying he would like to offer help to HAITI???  What?  How about talking about CANADA and the USA?

Can someone please explain THAT one to me?

***

And while on the subject of Obama’s visit to Ottawa last week…

The guy had admitted to ‘using’ Cocaine in his youth.  So, now he walks about ‘The Market’ – THE spot in Ottawa for buying drugs – and asks “where does one buy a ‘SNOW-GLOBE’ around here?”!!!  Is the guy nuts (or are these the type of effects past drug users must live with)?

First, I would like to know what his handlers have to say about this, then I’d like to know how come the media is not having a feast with this juicy line!  (OK, perhaps most of the members of the media are suffering through brain damage of their own…most HAVE shopped for ‘snow-globes’ of their own in the past.)

***

OK, these are not ‘complete’ and ‘finished’ thoughts in themselves.  But, are these not things to wonder about?

Warren Kinsella’s new low

Blazing Catfur has the whole story...

Warren Kinsella (of the ‘women politicians would be better off baking cookies’ and ‘let’s go to Chinatown for some barbecued cat and rice’ fame) does not like Kathy Shaidle.

While Mr. Kinsella is pro-censorship, Ms. Shaidle is a leader in the fight to preserve our freedom of speech.

While Mr. Kinsella is smooth, political insider, Ms. Shaidle is brash, outspoken commentator/poet.

While Mr. Kinsella is among the forces trying to build politically correct society, Ms. Shaidle wants people to say what they mean, clearly and unambiguously, using words that do not hide their real meaning – even if these words are colourful and perhaps even offensive to some.

While Mr. Kinsella is tries to silence all the voices he does not like, Ms. Shaidle actually helps people be heard – regardless of their message.

Mr. Kinsella is sympathetic to the Palestinian people – even at the cost of supporting the Palestinian terrorists which oppress the Palestinial people more than anyone else ever had.  Ms. Shaidle defends the right of Israel to exist and openly (and colourfully) says that terrorists are not nice people.

While Mr. Kinsella is someone who sues the people he disagrees with, Ms. Shaidle is someone who had been/is being sued by Kinsella for disagreeing with him.

Perhaps there is an underlying pattern here…

When Ms. Shaidle was invited to appear on TVO’s Agenda, to comment on ‘The Atheist Bus’ campaign, Mr, Kinsella went, well, a little too far.  When the host of the show, Steve Paikin, refused to ‘uninvite’ Ms. Shaidle after Mr. Kinsella’s first demand that they do so, Mr. Kinsella threatened ‘there will be consequences’ because ‘he wrote to the Minister of Education about it’.

Had Mr. Kinsella been an ‘ordinary citizen’, this would be an empty threat.  But, he is not:  he is the Liberal spin doctor who helped get this Minister elected, and as such, the Minister ‘owes him’ – on one level or another.  This little fact gives the whole threat a brand new twist – and a very sinister one, at that.

Here, I should declare my personal bias:  I respect Kathy Shaidle greatly, I admit I also quite like her – but I cannot say I agree with her views on Atheism.  I most vociferously disagree with some of the comments she made during the show.  This can be seen from my post on this last week.   I know Ms. Shaidle and I also do not share the same views on Christianity:  she had bought me lunch last summer when I popped into Toronto, the topic came up (briefly), and we walked away respecting each other, even if not agreeing with each other.  Nonetheless… that is not really the point here.

The point is that is Mr. Kinsella’s threat is not an empty one – if his action will really result in the Minister of Education delivering those ‘consequences’ against TVO, The Agenda and Mr. Paikin – then we have even more to fear.

Why not drop Kathleen Wynne, the Ontario Minister of Education, a line?  You can tell her what you think about Mr. Kinsella’s threat here:  kwynne.mpp@liberal.ola.org

Update: It looks like the Canadian Jewish Congress has just decided to no longer associate with (employ) Kinsella…. don’t know the details there is a non-disclosure agreement in place.

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Anti-Islamist coalition

A new blog has entered ‘The ‘Sphere’!

Anti-Islamist Coalition

Anti-Islamist Coalition

Thanks to Babazee for creating this logo!

And, just to avoid any possible confusion, let me re-state this once again:

Islam is not the same as Islamism.

Islam is a religion, which is practiced in peace by millions of wonderful people.  I know and love some of them, and I certainly respect many of them.

Islamism is not the same sort of thing at all.  It is a political movement, intent on world domination, which just happens to be dressed up in the guise of Islam. These types of political movements have plagued humanity for thousands of years – and they have usually sought to legitimize themselves by wrapping themselves in the respectability of a ‘religious movement.  It just happens that this particular political movement is abusing Islam for its ends!

Certainly, Islamists believe themselves to be following Islam – which is why they cite it as a justification for their crimes.  And many Islamists truly believe what they are doing is following their god’s will – which is what makes this such a dangerous combination.

Which is what makes it that same old …

Go ahead and hate your neighbour,

Go ahead and cheat your friend,

Do it in the name of Heaven Islam,

So you can justify it in the end …

And THAT is why Islamism must be opposed.

It is an insult to Islam, and a deadly threat to the rest of us.  Never forget what happened to the ‘Mountain People’…  If you don’t know, then, listen, children, to the story that was recorded long ago…

(Please, take a special note of how the ‘Valley People’ reacted when invited in to share, as equals…  Of couse, were I the composer, I would have the ‘Treasure’ say ‘Freedom of Speech and Equal Rights for ALL’!  In my never-humble-opinion, without these, there can be no true peace!  But, that might be too big a mouthful for a song…)

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Ottawa bans ‘Atheist bus ads’

I am shocked at this.

Ottawa buses have sported all kinds of ads – religious or not – which I thought were, well, ‘offensive’.

Few years ago, they ran that ad which had attempted to lure children into the hands of pedophiliac priests:  an outwardly ‘pro-religion’ ad that urged EVERYONE (including underage children, who, of course, can read) to ‘go to church’ to ‘get guidance’.

If one reads its meaning in the ‘commonly understood’ way (at least, commonly understood among the people I know – the ad raised a lot of comments when it ran), it is simply and unequivocally luring children into the ‘dens of pedophiles’ also known as ‘Churches’. (Actually, about 15 years ago, a stranger who happened to be a ‘Mount Cashel’ survivor gave me a very poorly written, yet highly personal and extremely convincing note to warn me that letting my children near a Christian Church is putting them in the hands of pedophiles.  I have not found any evidence to disbelieve him – to the contrary.  When I took my son to a Pentacostal Sunday School, I found a person I knew to have a sexual orientation to ‘children’ – but I do not know if he ever acted on it – to be in charge of the program….and, when I alerted the Church hierarchy, they told me that since he had ‘found Christ’, it was important that they give him a ‘second chance’.  NOT WITH MY SON!!!)

We all know that many pedophiles like to use the ‘channel of divine authority’ to force young people into sex and silence.  It does not mean that every priest is a pedophile, only that pedophiles like to infiltrate the ranks of clergy, because the blackmail of ‘eternal damnation’ is a powerful tool to manipulate.  And, it does explain why the prices of houses within sight of a rectory (or, indeed, a Church) tend to be below the expected market value…. most responsible parents are just not willing to expose their kids to that high a risk!

So, ‘bus ads’ urging young people to ‘go to church’ can, in an undeniable way, be perceived as sending them into an environment where they are much more likely to encounter a pedophile than they would among the general population.  And, in any ‘moral’ judgment, this makes such ads ‘offensive’!

If, on the other hand, one were to read the ‘go to church’ ad in a different way (which, frankly, many Christians have assured me was the intent of the ad), the ad becomes offensive on a completely different  level.  Should the meaning of the ad have been ‘come to our churches when you are most vulnerable, so our priests can emotionally blackmail you to submit to our dogma so you will give us money – and thus buy God’s love and approval’ – well, frankly, that is rather offensive, too.  People who are going through a hard time and are vulnerable are the last ones who should go to places that tell them that ‘giving away money in this world’ will ‘buy them salvation in the next one’!

I also find it offensive in the extreme when some religious people misconstrue the meaning of ‘morality’:  instead of defining ‘morality’ as ‘deep, introspective reasoning to choose the best – least damaging/bad/evil – course of action based on their own experience, reasoning and their specific circumstances’, many religious people reduce ‘morality’ to ‘obedience to a set of dogmatic rules’.  That, in my opinion, is reducing ‘morality’ to the level of ‘puppy-training’ – and something which offends me on the intellectual, spiritual and moral levels!

To sum this up:  I find ads telling people that ‘going to church’ is ‘a good thing’ to be offensive in the extreme!

Yet, ads urging people – especially emotionally vulnerable people – to ‘go to church’ were deemed ‘acceptable’ and ran on the sides of Ottawa buses.

And, that is a good thing:  matters of freedom of expression are more important than any ‘sensitivities’.  Protecting the right of people to get their message out (provided they pay for it from their own pocket) – however much I despise their message – is much more important than whether or not I (or other people) find that message ‘offensive’!

Today, the sides and rears of Ottawa busses sport a different kind of an ad:  ones paid for by our own local ‘Cruella deVille’ and her little furrier empire!

Please, do not get me wrong.  I think that if an animal is killed for food, it is only reasonable to use every part of the animal, including its skin or fur.  However, that is a very a different thing from raising animals in small, crowded cages and then electrocuting them (so the pelt has no holes) and using only their skin to create a ‘luxury product’.  And, it is this latter practice that I find extremely offensive.

Actually, I asked a few of my Hindu friends what they thought about these ads:  they were not particularly fond of them, to say the least!  Their religious sensitivities were deeply offended by the ads promoting frivoulous ‘luxury furs’!

After all, NOT ascribing animals a soul equal to the soul humans have IS just as much of a a religious prejudice as NOT ascribing them one is….   Please, think about this, long and hard.

Yet, these ads urging people to indulge their religious prejudice that animals have no soul (or, at least, not one worth considering) and to indulge themselves by wearing their pelts as an expression of luxury – these are allowed to run!!!  Offensive in the extreme!!!  (Please, ask PeTA what they think of these ads!!!)

And, that is a good thing:  matters of freedom of expression are more important than any ‘sensitivities’.  Protecting the right of people to get their message out (provided they pay for it from their own pocket) – however much I despise their message – is much more important than whether or not I (or other people) find that message ‘offensive’!

Yet, ads urging people not to take their religion to the point of extreme – not to obsess about it, to the detriment of their quality of life (and those near and dear to them) – THOSE ads are deemed to be ‘offensive’?!?!?

I have heard objections to these ads, based on the grounds that ‘seeing them might make people do immoral things’!  Yeah, right… Yet, if that is so….

Well, then, what about a person so obsessed with his religion, he is planning to strap a bomb to his body and blow up himself, along with a busload of schoolkids?  What if THAT person sees the bus and decides not to chance it?  What IF God is NOT real – who would give him the 72 virgins?

Would that be so bad?

Or, what about the father who is planning to clense his family’s honour in his daughter’s blood?  What if HE sees the ad, and realizes that killing his daughter on the GAMBLE that there IS a God just may not be worth it?

Would saving the life of one girl not be worth offending a few people?

Or, what about the man who loves his wife, but who is told by his spiritual adviser that it is not just permitted, but ‘necessary for her salvation’ that he beat her?  It is not so long ago that Christian priests preached this from the pulpit – and many Muslim Imams still do!  So, what if a man who believes them sees this – and it helps him find the courage to respect his wife and treat her like an equal – which is what he wanted to do in the first place, were it not for the ‘religious teachings’???

Would THAT be so offensive?

I suppose that some people think so.  I guess the only time Jews, Christians and Muslims gang together is to lynch atheists – and to silence the voices of reason that threaten the power of clergy to control the lives of nice people.

How ‘offensive’!!!

UPDATE: This week ( ending March 14th), the Ottawa City Council has reversed the ruling and the ‘atheist ads’ will be allowed to appear on the sides of busses.

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank