Carolyn sent me an email this past Saturday with more riveting thoughts which she has allowed me to reprint here:
I just read an article in the National Post this morning. It's on the front page and it's called "Reason To Live". It talks about Singapore's program of using reformed terrorists to challenge the ideology of practising terrorists. So this is a Muslim solution to a Muslim problem. The reformed terrorists "listen" to the practising terrorists and begin to challenge their ideas and their narrow interpretations of the Koran. They called this a Religious Rehabilitation Group. They put together a manual on terrorist ideology and how to confront it. This article shows the importance of challenging the core beliefs of people through a process of re-education. The extremists needed to unlearn a narrow interpretation of the Koran before they could learn to value all human life (non-Muslims). Like people in cults, extremists need to be deprogrammed from their ideology which is: hate non-Muslims, strive to create an Islamic state, engage in Jihad. Back to Canada..I think we have a dilemma..how do we address this need to educate immigrants towards a Canadian ideology when the vogue thinking of Canada is to embrace relativism? When you stand for everything you stand for nothing. In other words our tolerance tolerates the intolerable, and therefore we need to be less tolerant.
This fits in perfectly with something that I read this morning in the Post. "Deeyah, who has been dubbed the "Muslim Madonna," has been forced to hire security guards to protect her in London next month while she promotes a new single and video, according to the British newspaper The Independent."
"The 27-year-old Norwegian-born star has become the target of threats from religious extremists who are angry about the video for her song What Will It Be, which she argues is about Muslim women's rights and empowerment. The video features Irshad Manji, the Toronto-based feminist Muslim writer, ripping off a strip of tape that covers her mouth."
So here is an example of outspoken Muslim women trying to educate their own people about women's rights and so forth, but it appears that some extremists are not very pleased with Deeyah's message. According to the report, some media outlets are now backing away from promoting the video much the same way most Canadian newspapers have been reluctant to print the infamous "blasphemous" cartoons.
So back to Carolyn's point, "...our tolerance tolerates the intolerable.."
Right on. Multiculturalism has failed the very people it was designed to protect. Are we going to take a stand based on principles, or just give in all the time to the greatest pressure and threat? This is our Iraq; right here, right now.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Mexican Malaise
Something just doesn't add up - The Canadian couple murdered in a five-star Maya Beach resort during what should have been the joyful occasion of their daughter's wedding. Throats slashed. Right in their rooms. In Mexico. (I could say, 'I'm not making this up', but I don't want to trivialize the horror, so I won't.)
The Mexican authorities tell us they have everything under control, and they know that the evil-doers are apparently three Canadian women who took a flight home shortly after the gruesome murder.
But the story keeps changing, and Mexican authorities are not giving Canada officials much information. And there are a lot of unanswered questions: Why was there clerical bungling of certain hotel registrations? Was there really a lock-down after the discovery of the bodies? Why were so many of the hotel's guests allowed to leave without questioning? Why are the Mexican investigators so sure that it was these three Canadian women, and that it was an organized crime hit? Wouldn't this have been accomplished much easier with a few guns in Canada? Why travel to Mexico? And three women? Were they Charlie's Devils?
You don't have to be Columbo to get that niggling feeling that something ain't right.
CTV reports that Toronto coroner Dr. David Evans, who will take possession of the remains when they arrive in Canada this weekend, "expects any potential evidence will be contaminated, particularly if the Mexican funeral director has done preparation work on the Ianiero's bodies." That assumes of course, that the rumor that the bodies have already been cremated is false.
I smell a cover-up.
The Mexican authorities tell us they have everything under control, and they know that the evil-doers are apparently three Canadian women who took a flight home shortly after the gruesome murder.
But the story keeps changing, and Mexican authorities are not giving Canada officials much information. And there are a lot of unanswered questions: Why was there clerical bungling of certain hotel registrations? Was there really a lock-down after the discovery of the bodies? Why were so many of the hotel's guests allowed to leave without questioning? Why are the Mexican investigators so sure that it was these three Canadian women, and that it was an organized crime hit? Wouldn't this have been accomplished much easier with a few guns in Canada? Why travel to Mexico? And three women? Were they Charlie's Devils?
You don't have to be Columbo to get that niggling feeling that something ain't right.
CTV reports that Toronto coroner Dr. David Evans, who will take possession of the remains when they arrive in Canada this weekend, "expects any potential evidence will be contaminated, particularly if the Mexican funeral director has done preparation work on the Ianiero's bodies." That assumes of course, that the rumor that the bodies have already been cremated is false.
I smell a cover-up.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Good Advice from Down Under
Here is a great article from CNS News about how Australia is handling immigration. Blog reader Joe tipped me off on that one.
"The Australians are proceeding as we have discussed on your blog. Identify and promote essential cultural values and make them a requirement for citizenship. Agree to adhere to them, or leave the country.
I'd love to hear such plain, logical talk from a Canadian politician!"
So would I, Joe!!What Price, Freedom?
I recently received a message from someone very close to me, who is much better apprised of U.S. politics than I am. Her email is as follows:
Well, there are a few issues here. One is the importance of freedom of the press and freedom of speech vs. the importance of presenting an impression of solidarity against the enemy. I would suggest that if there is another 9/11, the leftist media and democrats would quickly get behind George Bush.
However, I think that the very fact that we can openly express a difference of opinion is the ultimate weapon that rankles the enemy.
The thing is though, we all need equal access to that Freedom of Speech. That includes Christians.
"As a Canadian it always amazes me to see the disrespect that the U.S. Democrats show for President Bush. Scripture and Abe Lincoln said that a nation divided against itself cannot stand.
It seems to me that the terrorists who are united against America are laughing gleefully as they divide and conquer.
The prima-donnas of the American liberal press are more like Pamela Anderson dancing around a pole, all eyes are to be focused on them.
Neville Chamberlain thought by appeasing Hitler they could contain him. Now the extreme peacenik left again are singing the same old refrain, give peace & terrorists a chance.
To do what?
The main stream media is definitely biased against Christians. They would love it if we had no say on anything ever. Because we don't get in their face they think they have neutralized us. Like and elephant we have a long memory when we go to the ballot box."
Well, there are a few issues here. One is the importance of freedom of the press and freedom of speech vs. the importance of presenting an impression of solidarity against the enemy. I would suggest that if there is another 9/11, the leftist media and democrats would quickly get behind George Bush.
However, I think that the very fact that we can openly express a difference of opinion is the ultimate weapon that rankles the enemy.
The thing is though, we all need equal access to that Freedom of Speech. That includes Christians.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Big Vast Wasteland
O.K. Back to real life where things are a bit less controversial...
Is it just me or did T.V. selection take a real nose-dive lately? Maybe it's just because I'm sick to death of reality shows, but I just don't see anything worth watching out there now. Is it because we are the last people on earth to still just have cable? Is satellite that much better?
There used to be some excellent shows that I would look forward to watching faithfully. Then suddenly they just ended. Poof!
I watched the final episode of Third Watch to the end before I realized it was the last one. I mourned the loss of Judging Amy. Joan of Arcadia was just catching on when they pulled that one. Good quality programs. Gone. All that's left are brain-dead comedies that have gay people prancing around or boomer parents trying to look cool while their smart-aleck kids outmaneuver them every episode. And speaking of gay, if I see one more commercial for Brokeback Mountain where those two cowboy dudes gaze romantically into each other's eyes, I'm going to upchuck my popcorn! (Oh-oh.. There I go getting into trouble again!)
Please, is there anything left worth watching? Which shows were you sorry to see end?
Is it just me or did T.V. selection take a real nose-dive lately? Maybe it's just because I'm sick to death of reality shows, but I just don't see anything worth watching out there now. Is it because we are the last people on earth to still just have cable? Is satellite that much better?
There used to be some excellent shows that I would look forward to watching faithfully. Then suddenly they just ended. Poof!
I watched the final episode of Third Watch to the end before I realized it was the last one. I mourned the loss of Judging Amy. Joan of Arcadia was just catching on when they pulled that one. Good quality programs. Gone. All that's left are brain-dead comedies that have gay people prancing around or boomer parents trying to look cool while their smart-aleck kids outmaneuver them every episode. And speaking of gay, if I see one more commercial for Brokeback Mountain where those two cowboy dudes gaze romantically into each other's eyes, I'm going to upchuck my popcorn! (Oh-oh.. There I go getting into trouble again!)
Please, is there anything left worth watching? Which shows were you sorry to see end?
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Preserving Our "Extinct" Society
The National Post just finished an excellent and provocative series "Canada's Baby Gap", examining the dwindling size of Canadian families. Notable exceptions are the visible minority and native populations, which are still reproducing much higher than their replacement rates. The rest of Canadians seem reluctant to have more than one child, or even opt for no kids at all.
The Post reports that "By the time Canada celebrates its 150th anniversary in 2017, one out of every five people will be a visible minority, the highest proportion since records have bee kept. ...the country's visible minority population is projected to increase by between 56% and 111% between 2001 and 2017, while the rest of the population is only expected to increase by between 1% and 7% in the same period."
This is all going to have a dramatic effect on our culture and the face of Canadian society in the future; not to mention the disparity between the number of aging boomers compared to the lack of youth poised to enter the workforce and support the social safety net, to which we have all grown accustomed.
What the Post didn't say is that the prevalent liberal attitude of self-indulgence and self-centeredness has been so entrenched in our collective psyche that we see children as either a financial drain or just another "thing" to collect along with the electronic toys. One child to decorate that huge house in the suburbs, and then tick that one off the list of achievements. Certainly it is economically oppressive to have very many children, although the current government's plan to give child care assistance directly to parents is a good step in the right direction. And to be fair, some couples do desperately want children and are unable to have them.
It shouldn't be surprising though, that children are so devalued. The family unit itself is fragmented and so loosely defined as to be meaningless. A Canadian "family" today can be comprised of any two or even more persons living together and having some degree of sexual contact with one another, with or without the presence of children in the home. If everything is family, then nothing is family, and that is where we are today. Gay marriage and abortion rights have further trounced the importance of children and the family unit as the vital and cohesive foundation of society.
Furthermore, those that are still procreating at higher rates are going to expect and demand that their values and cultures be strongly represented in our political system, which will ensure more power to change the Christian values which were instrumental in founding this country. Words like "Christmas" will be a distant memory.
I realize I am treading on risky ground here, and can only ask that you think about the implications of this. A multicultural society is enriching, but are we ready to go the route of France and Spain? As Mark Steyn said in his essay, "It's the Demography, Stupid", the very policies that caused a drop in birth rates may ironically come back to bite the liberal zealots when certain ethnic groups achieve such power by sheer numbers, that it becomes an unpopular ethos to condone homosexuality and abortion.
I welcome your views, but ask that you exercise restraint because contrary to what you may read in our Charter of Rights, we definitely do not have Freedom of Speech in Canada.
The Post reports that "By the time Canada celebrates its 150th anniversary in 2017, one out of every five people will be a visible minority, the highest proportion since records have bee kept. ...the country's visible minority population is projected to increase by between 56% and 111% between 2001 and 2017, while the rest of the population is only expected to increase by between 1% and 7% in the same period."
This is all going to have a dramatic effect on our culture and the face of Canadian society in the future; not to mention the disparity between the number of aging boomers compared to the lack of youth poised to enter the workforce and support the social safety net, to which we have all grown accustomed.
What the Post didn't say is that the prevalent liberal attitude of self-indulgence and self-centeredness has been so entrenched in our collective psyche that we see children as either a financial drain or just another "thing" to collect along with the electronic toys. One child to decorate that huge house in the suburbs, and then tick that one off the list of achievements. Certainly it is economically oppressive to have very many children, although the current government's plan to give child care assistance directly to parents is a good step in the right direction. And to be fair, some couples do desperately want children and are unable to have them.
It shouldn't be surprising though, that children are so devalued. The family unit itself is fragmented and so loosely defined as to be meaningless. A Canadian "family" today can be comprised of any two or even more persons living together and having some degree of sexual contact with one another, with or without the presence of children in the home. If everything is family, then nothing is family, and that is where we are today. Gay marriage and abortion rights have further trounced the importance of children and the family unit as the vital and cohesive foundation of society.
Furthermore, those that are still procreating at higher rates are going to expect and demand that their values and cultures be strongly represented in our political system, which will ensure more power to change the Christian values which were instrumental in founding this country. Words like "Christmas" will be a distant memory.
I realize I am treading on risky ground here, and can only ask that you think about the implications of this. A multicultural society is enriching, but are we ready to go the route of France and Spain? As Mark Steyn said in his essay, "It's the Demography, Stupid", the very policies that caused a drop in birth rates may ironically come back to bite the liberal zealots when certain ethnic groups achieve such power by sheer numbers, that it becomes an unpopular ethos to condone homosexuality and abortion.
I welcome your views, but ask that you exercise restraint because contrary to what you may read in our Charter of Rights, we definitely do not have Freedom of Speech in Canada.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Things that Make You Go "Hmmmm...."
The local mall is renovating and plans include a fitness centre just for women.
I wonder how, in this age of equality this can be justified? Under what pretext can men be excluded? I believe this is a Charter of Rights issue.
If the rationale has got something to do with women not wanting to be gawked at when they work out, I must ask if lesbians will then be excluded as well. And on that point of logic, should gay men be therefore allowed?
Which brings me to the subject of public washrooms. Should we have four different types of washrooms - gay, lesbian, straight women and straight men? Recently I was having this discussion with some family members (yes, we do get onto strange topics) and the point was made that if we go this route, then there should be private washrooms for each gay or lesbian person, to avoid the prospect of leering and gawking. So we need one for straight men, one for straight women, maybe a few family washrooms, and a whole bunch of private ones. Hopefully the transgendered and bisexual people could identify with one of these options.
Otherwise, let's make that a unisex gym at the mall.
I wonder how, in this age of equality this can be justified? Under what pretext can men be excluded? I believe this is a Charter of Rights issue.
If the rationale has got something to do with women not wanting to be gawked at when they work out, I must ask if lesbians will then be excluded as well. And on that point of logic, should gay men be therefore allowed?
Which brings me to the subject of public washrooms. Should we have four different types of washrooms - gay, lesbian, straight women and straight men? Recently I was having this discussion with some family members (yes, we do get onto strange topics) and the point was made that if we go this route, then there should be private washrooms for each gay or lesbian person, to avoid the prospect of leering and gawking. So we need one for straight men, one for straight women, maybe a few family washrooms, and a whole bunch of private ones. Hopefully the transgendered and bisexual people could identify with one of these options.
Otherwise, let's make that a unisex gym at the mall.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Grocery Store Wars
O.K. Ladies,
The best response I got to my blog was the Red Pepper story. It seems a lot of people can relate; especially women. Do all women go into a grocery store anticipating that everyone is watching them? Am I the only person that breaks into a cold sweat every time I fumble with the plastic bags for the produce? They never want to open!
Here is a trick: Go to the wet produce, and pick them up like you're planning to buy them, then as soon as your fingers are damp, pick up one of those plastic bags and they will open like a charm!!
Just watch out for the Red Pepper Lady!!!! She will definitely have a few words to say..
Anyone else have a grocery store story? Please share!!!
The best response I got to my blog was the Red Pepper story. It seems a lot of people can relate; especially women. Do all women go into a grocery store anticipating that everyone is watching them? Am I the only person that breaks into a cold sweat every time I fumble with the plastic bags for the produce? They never want to open!
Here is a trick: Go to the wet produce, and pick them up like you're planning to buy them, then as soon as your fingers are damp, pick up one of those plastic bags and they will open like a charm!!
Just watch out for the Red Pepper Lady!!!! She will definitely have a few words to say..
Anyone else have a grocery store story? Please share!!!
Back To Real Life: Another Discovery in my Journey
Again I am glad I'm not a politician. I really don't think it would be possible to be true to yourself and still stay in the game. Honesty and politics are mutually exclusive.
I know that sounds cynical, but after seeing what Garth Turner and David Emerson went through this past week, I fully understand why women are so lacking in political representation. You need the thickest of skin and the ability to be able to live with yourself; all the while being aware that one slip of the tongue could land you in hot water.
This of course, totally contradicts my world view, which is to live by my own personal code of conduct, and be comfortable in my own skin without worrying unduly about what others are thinking. When you let others define you, you give them power. Then if you don't live up to their standards or beliefs you are scorned and ostracized.
But if you allow yourself the freedom to give up that need to have approval from everyone around you, then you get back the power. That is a wonderful, peaceful feeling. You are accountable to yourself and your Maker only. Everything follows from that. If you can feel comfortable in your own skin, then your relationships with those you care about will be meaningful and authentic. On the other hand, if you constantly need other people to say you're o.k., you will be forever seeking that approval and you will be miserable. Guaranteed. I've had experience in both worlds.
This is a much better place.
I know that sounds cynical, but after seeing what Garth Turner and David Emerson went through this past week, I fully understand why women are so lacking in political representation. You need the thickest of skin and the ability to be able to live with yourself; all the while being aware that one slip of the tongue could land you in hot water.
This of course, totally contradicts my world view, which is to live by my own personal code of conduct, and be comfortable in my own skin without worrying unduly about what others are thinking. When you let others define you, you give them power. Then if you don't live up to their standards or beliefs you are scorned and ostracized.
But if you allow yourself the freedom to give up that need to have approval from everyone around you, then you get back the power. That is a wonderful, peaceful feeling. You are accountable to yourself and your Maker only. Everything follows from that. If you can feel comfortable in your own skin, then your relationships with those you care about will be meaningful and authentic. On the other hand, if you constantly need other people to say you're o.k., you will be forever seeking that approval and you will be miserable. Guaranteed. I've had experience in both worlds.
This is a much better place.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Good Strategy; Bad Optics
I've been struggling ever since the Tory Cabinet announcements about how to come to terms with the inclusion of Liberal David Emerson and the non-elected Michael Fortier. This is a classic case of "Cognitive Dissonance", which I studied in my university days.
On one hand, I want to believe that both the party and leader I supported are 100% beyond ethical approach. But something tells me this was not a 'Kosher' decision. (My apologies to anyone who might take offense). In this classic psychological dilemma, one tries to reduce the feeling of anxiety or unease between the extreme dichotomy of the polar opposites. In other words, you try to make yourself feel better.
Well, the best I can offer is that political pundits everywhere can be reassured that this new Government will not be boring; contrary to the previous concerns. There will be plenty of media fodder to chew on.
Messieurs Emerson and Fortier will no doubt enrich the new government's bench strength, and encourage the support of the business sector. Whether or not the entire affair can sustain ethical credibility is another matter. The verdict will be delivered at the next election.
On one hand, I want to believe that both the party and leader I supported are 100% beyond ethical approach. But something tells me this was not a 'Kosher' decision. (My apologies to anyone who might take offense). In this classic psychological dilemma, one tries to reduce the feeling of anxiety or unease between the extreme dichotomy of the polar opposites. In other words, you try to make yourself feel better.
Well, the best I can offer is that political pundits everywhere can be reassured that this new Government will not be boring; contrary to the previous concerns. There will be plenty of media fodder to chew on.
Messieurs Emerson and Fortier will no doubt enrich the new government's bench strength, and encourage the support of the business sector. Whether or not the entire affair can sustain ethical credibility is another matter. The verdict will be delivered at the next election.
Monday, February 06, 2006
Wonderful Day for Canada!
This morning, at 11 a.m., Stephen Harper will be sworn in as the next Prime Minister of Canada. Apparently he is bringing his own Bible.
The Liberals will just be swearing.
The Liberals will just be swearing.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Being Liberal Means "Never Having to Say You're Sorry"
What can you say about a party that thought it was invincible and therefore had no need to be accountable to the Canadian public? Like a cancer festering deep within, the malaise grew until it strangled itself with its own arrogance.
Now we are witnessing a whole gambit of first tier contenders for the party leadership (John Manley, Frank McKenna and Brian Tobin) announcing their reluctance to claim the golden crown of a once proud and viable party that became addicted to power and a sense of entitlement.
Curiously, the next rank of leadership hopefuls have had very little experience in the self-proclaimed "natural governing party". They include floor-crossers Scott Brison and Belinda Stronach, as well as relative political newbies such as Michael Ignatieff and Ken Dryden. Then of course there's one-time NDP Ontario premier Bob Rae! (How is it that the Liberals are even contemplating that one when Mike Harris was always thrown in our faces as an example of poor provincial politics being extrapolated to the federal level? I'll take Mike Harris over Bob Rae any day!!)
Anyway, perhaps it will take someone who hasn't been steeped in the Liberal culture to turn things around. For sure the "Love Story" that the Canadian electorate has had with the Liberal party is not doing well at the box office.
Now we are witnessing a whole gambit of first tier contenders for the party leadership (John Manley, Frank McKenna and Brian Tobin) announcing their reluctance to claim the golden crown of a once proud and viable party that became addicted to power and a sense of entitlement.
Curiously, the next rank of leadership hopefuls have had very little experience in the self-proclaimed "natural governing party". They include floor-crossers Scott Brison and Belinda Stronach, as well as relative political newbies such as Michael Ignatieff and Ken Dryden. Then of course there's one-time NDP Ontario premier Bob Rae! (How is it that the Liberals are even contemplating that one when Mike Harris was always thrown in our faces as an example of poor provincial politics being extrapolated to the federal level? I'll take Mike Harris over Bob Rae any day!!)
Anyway, perhaps it will take someone who hasn't been steeped in the Liberal culture to turn things around. For sure the "Love Story" that the Canadian electorate has had with the Liberal party is not doing well at the box office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)