September 07, 2006

Sept. 7, 2006: #2 Bud Talkinghorn

Small "L" code words revealed

John Ibbitson wrote a weighty column "Canada's tolerance conundrum" for The Globe and Mail (Wed. 6, A-4). It was a classic piece about how we will always have cultural harmony because of the wisdom of the Big "L" liberal government's immigration policies. Supposedly, that is the vast diversity of immigrant backgrounds, so that no single immigrant group becomes a dominant bloc. However, there is one caveat which pops up. That is when Ibbitson states: "In fact, our biggest priority in immigration right now should be to boost the intake from Latin America, to counterbalance the the huge numbers coming from East and South Asia." I'm not a cryptographer, but that sounds like code for let's keep those Islamic fanatics from settling here in "huge" numbers. For a liberal, he receives an A for his nuanced warning. For having the guts to simply and openly state the obvious, I give him an F.

© Bud Talkinghorn

Islamic terrorism--Obviously it's all the West's fault

At least that is the line of reasoning that Sheema Khan takes in her Globe and Mail column (Tuesday, Sept. 5, A-13). Her arguments are so scattered it is hard to rebut everything. Therefore, I am forced to reply in a similar scattered form.

She takes the statement of one British suicide bomber, who said, "Your democratically elected government continuously perpetrates atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible...until we feel security, you will always be our targets." This video was made by one of the London tube bombers. Even born in an economically-advanced, tolerant, secure country, and educated there, he still doesn't understand democracy. Or is his version the theocracy that runs Iran and disqualified hundreds of reformist candidates, because they "weren't pure enough." And where did he get that line about Britain "continuously perpetrating atrocities against his people (he wasn't even Iraqi or Afghani) all over the world." If Sheema Khan thinks he is making a valid point, she is blinded by her fundamentalist ideology. The jihadi had a quaint view of "security" and "world-wide". First, the world-wide conflict between Muslims and Westerners is located in just two countries. If he wants to see world-wide violence he has only to look at radical Islam's attacks on "infidels" stretching from Indonesia to Pakistan. Secondly, the "security" he claims would descend on the Muslims if the West bowed out is illusionary. Before the Second War with Iran, Saddam and his fascist Baath Party managed to kill or wound a million Iranians, while losing around 750,000 of his own people. He then gassed thousands of his Kurdish subjects in the north and in 1991-2 massacred hundreds of thousands of Shia in the south. The number of his Kumaiti victims, who simply disappeared, will never be known. The Coalition's attempt to bring democracy and economic prosperity drew out the anti-progress Allahu Akbar crowd from all over the Middle East. Content for a while to blow-up anything that represented the elected govenment and the American forces, they have recently morphed into terroists who target anything Shia. I always find it bizarre that you can call yourself a religious martyr, yet pick mosques as your truck bomb targets. Mind you, marketplaces and even school sports fields are also "legitimate" sites. Can't Ms. Khan see that whether the British are in Iraq or not, the current blood tide is only a step away from a full bore civil war between the competing sects?

She thinks that the West should change its foreign policy, presumably so the Taliban can return to Afghanistan and then invite al-Qaeda back for more terrorist training. Iraq should have been left in the thuggish hands of Saddam and his Baathist dictatorship. Or maybe the Coalition should retreat now, so that security can reign in Iraq? Another of her statements (attributed to Robert Pape) is that the terrorist attacks are really rooted in nationalism. Is that why they always shout "Allahu akbar!" after each new atrocity? When did Allah become a nation? I guess Ms. Khan didn't hear Zahwiri's latest missive to the America. "Americans must become Muslims"...left unsaid, but understood, is you deserve to be attacked if unconverted. It seems that Zawahiri has consulted a wise old imam who says that ten million infidel victims wouldn't be excessive. That barbaric vision cannot be reasoned with, it must be ruthlessly stamped out. I suspect Khan would agree with that fool, Jack Layton, who talked about negotiatiing with the Taliban. Oh, lest we forget our "blanket support of Israel" is also a cause for our own Muslims citizens to rise up against us. Sorry about that, but democracies support other democracies. We don't support fascist theocracies, or Orwellian states like Syria or Saddam's Iraq.

Ms. Khan would do her fellow Muslims a favour if she pointed out the abysmal state of most of the Islamic world. She could start with why they tend to hog the bottom of the UN's Human desirability index [or whatever that index is called -- NJC]. Or why 22 Muslim countries combined don't have a GDP equal to Spain's. Or for that matter, why Spain's output of literature is greater than the entire Islamic world's. A small treatise on how the Islamic community is going to resolve the genocide of black Muslims in Darfur would be appreciated. Or perhaps she could give us the Islamic justification for why harmless Christians in southern Indonesia are being attacked and forced into refugee camps by Muslim extremists, while the Indonesian government is doing nothing to stop it. Slavery in Mauritania and Mali could be a good kick-off for a talk on pure Islamic values--she could yoke that topic to the freedom that Islam affords women. The list of Islamic topics is nearly inexhaustable.

Rarely has an article infuriated me more. Even the fuzzy allusion to Joe Lieberman's defeat contradicts her main thesis. It reminds me of the "debates" between Westerners and Arabs. They don't seem to be arguing from the same planet. The Arabs simply will not concede a point, no matter how logical it is. Along with this are the preposterous conspiracy ideas, i.e. The CIA or Mossad was the culprit in 9/11. When all else fails, the Arab analysts trot out Israeli's Zionist aggressions. It is though we have to answer for every policy that that country adopts. Sheer nonsense. It would like attacking Syria's position in Iraq by bringing up the Algerian civil war.

Finally, Khan's concludes with a call for decency, justice, and equity in our foreign policy. She leaves no doubt that the Harper government is incapable of those qualities. "Our government is accountable to the electorate--not to violent usurpers of our democratic system". Gee, I thought that the Conservatives had been elected to office, not seized it in a military coup. Or maybe the CIA and Mossad helped illegally swing the vote? Her ending was at least consistent with the rest of her garbled message.

© Bud Talkinghorn

Going to the feminists' dark side

From the early yelpings of the feminist movement, basically, I had signed on. Why in hell shouldn't a woman doing the same job as a man not be paid the same? I was also influenced by a particular "guidance counsellor", who didn't believe that women should be doctors. "No man wants a woman tampering with his body" was a direct quote to his date, the one I had lined up for him, erroneously. "You want to enter medicine, girls, then become a nurse." That was over-the-top, but reflected a wide-spread feeling among a minority of men. However, they were not about to apply a Gamil Gharbi (a.k.a. Marc Lepine) solution to female engineers, Still it surely wasn't a progressive attitude. Anyway, I went along with the early mission statements that the feminist leadership put out. Their main point was that women should be treated equally in all fields. One of their initial thrusts was to bar all advertising that degraded or stereotyped women, i.e. the hot pants-clad bimbos in beer commercials. "Equality and respect" was their war cry. Oh, yes and pornography was to be banned as totallly demeaning to women.

However, one of their founding mothers was Ms. Andrea Dworkin. Ugly as sin, but right up their with the uber-babe Gloria Steinem. Then her more shocking statements appeared, such as "All heterosexual sex is rape". This dictum was backed up by her homosexual? / neutered? / common law hubbie. Not to seem a total prude, she authored a short story that featured a lesbian sex romp that featured a bloody metal-studded glove. Wow! I found that a tad sadistic, but not a murmur of criticism came from the sisterhood. Dworkin might be a vicious bull dyke, but she was their bull dyke. In fact, rather than being drummed out, Dworkin remained an elder stateswoman of the movement. She died recently, so now she has acquired sainthood. I was becoming confused about the feminists' stated ideals.

A decade ago came their "Saving Ophelia" front. Girl students were supposedly being ignored in our schools. Brute paternalism was the culprit. Fine, except that hue and cry is still heard, even though female students have vastly overtaken males in the high school graduation honours roll, and make up about 60% of recipients of all university degrees conferred. Their silence about affirmative action to ramrod women into top positions in business and the bureaucracy was simply good fem politics. Don't gloat when you've just won. Ophelia obviously learned how to kick butt. My last hope was that at least they meant that line about abolishing sexual stereotypes in the ad world. That hope too has been dashed. Consider the endless examples of TV ads showing men to be complete boobs--fattish, balding, and clueless, while the wives / girlfriends appear as a race of svelte, attractive know-it-alls, who can only roll their eyes at their men's endless buffonery. Rather than complain about these absurd male stereotypes, their silence suggests they relish it. It makes me wonder if that epigram about power is true. "The ranks of the prosecutors are always filled best from the ranks of the formally persecuted."

And no critique of the feminist movement would be complete without exposing the "Marc Lepine blood libel". Thanks to collective amnesia, the fems and the liberal media have forgotten that "Marc Lepine" was actually born Gamil Gharbi, the son of an Algerian wife-beater. Uppity women were not to be tolerated was dad's message. It is the hidden shame of most Islamic countries that violence against women is common and officially overlooked. However, from the second day of the massacre onward Gamil morphed into your everyday Canadian boy, Marc Lepine--a name he adopted in his mid teens. The feminists considered that slaughtering female engineering students was an abiding fantasy of your average Canadian male. Gharbi's crime was the albatross that we men must all hang around our necks. The plain fact is that no Canadian male has since mowed down females in droves. Granted, they will have Robert Pickton's crimes to pin on males, if Gamil / Marc grows too hoary or absurd to exploit. The Gharbi massacre was simply our first taste of what the fanatical Muslim mind is capable of. You want to see mass rape and slaughter of young women, just check out the rampages of the Algerian Islamic extremists. Afterwards, they would throw the bodies into the village wells to pollute them forever. Gamil didn't fall far from that extremist branch. However it fits the mindset of the radical feminists and their university Feminist Theory fifth column to universalize his twisted misogyny. But today's women are intelligent enough to see through such nonsense. Small wonder feminist groups like NAC have to break out their begging bowls. Tired of their irrelevance to Canadian women, even the Liberals smashed NAC off the government tit. Maybe it is time the feminist movement changed the channel.

© Bud Talkinghorn--Quick! Name the current head of NAC. Or any of the ones from the past imported from the US, for that matter.

Bud's pot shots

Why was Israel singled out as a "war criminal" by Louise Arbour of the UN Human Rights Commission, when Hezbollah purposely started the conflict and targetted civilians with its ballbearing-laden missiles? Thus destroying Lebanon's fragile redevelopment.

Why has the biggest study of the child care system been suppressed by the media? Could it be because the results showed that kids in long-term care turn out to be four times as aggressive as kids who aren't? Did you ever wonder where Harris and Kliebold came from?

While the press and public are agitated by the pedophiles allowed to get out of jail, nobody seems concerned about five suspected Muslim terrorists getting bail. These are people implicated in the most horrendous attempted mass murder conspiracy in Canadian history. And to discover that a Justice of the Peace could sign them off is more amazing. Doesn't their level of legal expertise end at performing weddings and notarizing wills?

Jack Layton called for the withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan. Co-incidentally, this coinsides with his big up-coming NDP convention in Quebec. Jack certainly knows his audience. Even his party understood that appearing at a Hezbollah support rally in Montreal wouldn't hurt them in this province. But in his CBC announcement Jack stressed that the NDP "stands foursquare against the terrorist threat". Comforting words those.

© Bud Talkinghorn

Is he schizoid? Besides, not all in Quebec are pro-Hezbollah. They see through Jack Layton and the politics ... also, Hezbollah. CBC? Same old lefties -- always managing to feature Jack Layton and other lefties, anything anti-US and anti-Pres. Bush, any negatives such as a soldier killed in Afghanistan but not Canada's military successes--at least that I have heard. NJC


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home