Question: Why are there so many restrictions on women in Saudi Arabia?
------
Guessed it yet?
------
How about now?
------
How's it going there?
------
Keep at it!!
-----
OK, OK, here's the answer.
To prevent them from becoming sluts.
HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHHAAAAAHA
HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHHAAAAAHA
HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHHAAAAAHA
HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHHAAAAAHA
HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHHAAAAAHA
......
Ya, I wasn't actually laughing either.
What's sick is that some men actually still think like that.
NOTE: That comment was made by an actual person who remains unidentified.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Sunday, July 13, 2008
a july-august straddler
Ottawa has a lot of Latinos!
These days, I've been spending many an hour on campus, along with a select group of others who have also chosen, for whatever stupid or legitimate reason, to take courses in the July-August session. I've recently come to the realization that Ottawa has a disproportionate number of Latinos, at least in comparison to Toronto.
Among the few homo sapiens I've been seeing prowling the desolate concrete forest that is Carleton in the late summer session are very young children.
Yes, that's right. And lot's of them.
I think it's got something to do with summer camp.
I have heard more Spanish being spoken among summer camp students than any other language, and heeding that, and the physical appearance of many of these children, I would conclude that many of them are Latino.
The only odd thing about all this is, throughout the course of my year living in this city I've seen very few Latino adults, but yet, all of a sudden, I'm seeing a very large number of Latino children.
Where the hell are their parents?
Feel free to provide me with a logical, plausible explanation to explain this phenomenon, that doesn't include conspiracies involving Hugo Chavez executing revered Venezuelan businessmen and exiling their children to equally immoral and decadent countries such as Canada and the United States to purify socialist Venezuela of such monstrous filth and their offspring.
Actually, maybe that isn't so implausible of an explanation after all......
I've also found that Ottawa is an appallingly small city (at least in comparison to Toronto). In fact, within one hour, I managed to walk from the heart of a major urban street to the outskirts of the city, where the sidewalk ended, and I started seeing signs providing distance figures for outlying small towns.
This was at 2 am, at which point I proceeded to a mall called "Southgate" (I only know this because of my Interac invoice) and purchased shrimp from the 24-hour Loeb. I then walked all the way back to my apartment, shrimp in hand, arrived at 3 am, defrosted the shrimp, started eating the shrimp, and watched a documentary about a dead, white governor-general.
Gotta love CPAC.
These days, I've been spending many an hour on campus, along with a select group of others who have also chosen, for whatever stupid or legitimate reason, to take courses in the July-August session. I've recently come to the realization that Ottawa has a disproportionate number of Latinos, at least in comparison to Toronto.
Among the few homo sapiens I've been seeing prowling the desolate concrete forest that is Carleton in the late summer session are very young children.
Yes, that's right. And lot's of them.
I think it's got something to do with summer camp.
I have heard more Spanish being spoken among summer camp students than any other language, and heeding that, and the physical appearance of many of these children, I would conclude that many of them are Latino.
The only odd thing about all this is, throughout the course of my year living in this city I've seen very few Latino adults, but yet, all of a sudden, I'm seeing a very large number of Latino children.
Where the hell are their parents?
Feel free to provide me with a logical, plausible explanation to explain this phenomenon, that doesn't include conspiracies involving Hugo Chavez executing revered Venezuelan businessmen and exiling their children to equally immoral and decadent countries such as Canada and the United States to purify socialist Venezuela of such monstrous filth and their offspring.
Actually, maybe that isn't so implausible of an explanation after all......
I've also found that Ottawa is an appallingly small city (at least in comparison to Toronto). In fact, within one hour, I managed to walk from the heart of a major urban street to the outskirts of the city, where the sidewalk ended, and I started seeing signs providing distance figures for outlying small towns.
This was at 2 am, at which point I proceeded to a mall called "Southgate" (I only know this because of my Interac invoice) and purchased shrimp from the 24-hour Loeb. I then walked all the way back to my apartment, shrimp in hand, arrived at 3 am, defrosted the shrimp, started eating the shrimp, and watched a documentary about a dead, white governor-general.
Gotta love CPAC.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Getting "Canadian Values" Right on Abortion
So I am sure everyone's heard of how various members of the Order of Canada have decided to renounce their membership in light of Dr. Morgantaler's recent naming. Since Dr. Morgantaler's achievements are associated with the fight for abortion rights, some members of the Order who hold strong pro-life views have returned their membership in protest of his appointment. So far, these members are:
- Gilbert Finn, the former Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick
- The Madonna House, which owns a chain of soup kitchens in several countries, and was holding the Order of Canada that was awarded to its founder Catherine Doherty
- B.C. Priest Rev. Lucien Larré, who founded Bosco Homes, a Saskatchewan organization which operates homes for troubled youth
The fiasco over Dr. Morgentaler's appointment to the Order of Canada demonstrates that a critical value confusion exists in Canada today. For some reason, many Canadians seem not to understand that legal regulations cannot possibly apply to an unborn entity that is not even a member of this or any society, and that women have full sovereignty over their bodies and what is in them. They also fail to understand that it is immoral to force women to give birth to a child if they are in less than acceptable socioeconomic situations, have been victims of rape, or simply do not feel emotionally mature or capable enough of giving birth to and raising a child. Many go so far as to call women who wish to undergo this medical procedure "murderers"--a title that is disgusting to award to an undeserving individual who is simply exercising her rights.
Individuals who continue to place religious values above human rights, and parade their own interpretations of "Christian Values" as integral to "Canadian Values", have apparently allowed themselves to forget about a particular body of written legal codes and unwritten conventions that form the legal foundation for what "Canadian Values" are. This body of legal tenets happens to be called the Constitution of Canada. I would like to take the liberty to kindly remind these people about the legal implications of potential legislation based on their beliefs.
Take a good look at the following written constitutional provisions, from the 1982 act:
52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Additionally, as part of this body of written and unwritten legal principles, it is a deeply upheld convention that the Supreme Court of Canada--the final court of appeal in the land--is vested with the final say on the constitutionality of all Canadian laws. In Janaury 1988, Canada's previous abortion law--which required women to appeal to a three-doctor abortion committee if she wished to have the procedure done--was struck down as unconstitutional as it violated section 7 of the constitution (provided above).
If a three-doctor abortion committee was ruled unconstitutional, imagine how the Supreme Court would rule on a law that attempted to ban abortions altogether. Such a law would likely be ruled unconstitutional, as it is an even deeper infringement on a woman's individual liberty to forbid abortion in all cases, than simply making it difficult for her to have this procedure if she desires to have it done. Therefore, individuals who are pro-life support the enactment of a law that would be unconstitutional.
In my view, individuals who believe that Canadian Values should include certain now-archaic elements of christian morality should remember that, once upon a time, a series of very harsh legal punishments, of a brutal physical nature, resembling the legal codes of contemporary Iran and Saudi Arabia used to be awarded to individuals who committed crimes, such as adultery, which are no longer considered legitimately criminal acts in the West. If these legal tenets can come out of fashion through religious revision and re-interpretation, there is no reason why other elements of christian tradition that are inconsistent with modern universal conceptions of rights, morality, and reasonability, cannot be eliminated as well.
I would rather have, as members of the Order of Canada, individuals who fought in the cause of women's rights, instead of individuals who support the enactment of unconstitutional, liberty-infringing laws, and who wish to perpetuate an archaic element of christian-influenced morality that should have no further application in the current world. Although the individuals who have chosen to renounce their membership in the order complain about a compromise in the award's honour and prestige as a result of Dr. Morgantaler's appointment, they have, in effect, contributed to the tarnishing of their own honour and prestige by showing their support for an archaic belief and potentially unconstitutional legislation.
Associated Links:
CBC - Former Lieutenant-Governor Resigns Order of Canada in Protest
CBC - Abortion Rights: A Timeline of Developments
The Constitution Act, 1982
Supreme Court of Canada - Role of the Court
- Gilbert Finn, the former Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick
- The Madonna House, which owns a chain of soup kitchens in several countries, and was holding the Order of Canada that was awarded to its founder Catherine Doherty
- B.C. Priest Rev. Lucien Larré, who founded Bosco Homes, a Saskatchewan organization which operates homes for troubled youth
The fiasco over Dr. Morgentaler's appointment to the Order of Canada demonstrates that a critical value confusion exists in Canada today. For some reason, many Canadians seem not to understand that legal regulations cannot possibly apply to an unborn entity that is not even a member of this or any society, and that women have full sovereignty over their bodies and what is in them. They also fail to understand that it is immoral to force women to give birth to a child if they are in less than acceptable socioeconomic situations, have been victims of rape, or simply do not feel emotionally mature or capable enough of giving birth to and raising a child. Many go so far as to call women who wish to undergo this medical procedure "murderers"--a title that is disgusting to award to an undeserving individual who is simply exercising her rights.
Individuals who continue to place religious values above human rights, and parade their own interpretations of "Christian Values" as integral to "Canadian Values", have apparently allowed themselves to forget about a particular body of written legal codes and unwritten conventions that form the legal foundation for what "Canadian Values" are. This body of legal tenets happens to be called the Constitution of Canada. I would like to take the liberty to kindly remind these people about the legal implications of potential legislation based on their beliefs.
Take a good look at the following written constitutional provisions, from the 1982 act:
52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Additionally, as part of this body of written and unwritten legal principles, it is a deeply upheld convention that the Supreme Court of Canada--the final court of appeal in the land--is vested with the final say on the constitutionality of all Canadian laws. In Janaury 1988, Canada's previous abortion law--which required women to appeal to a three-doctor abortion committee if she wished to have the procedure done--was struck down as unconstitutional as it violated section 7 of the constitution (provided above).
If a three-doctor abortion committee was ruled unconstitutional, imagine how the Supreme Court would rule on a law that attempted to ban abortions altogether. Such a law would likely be ruled unconstitutional, as it is an even deeper infringement on a woman's individual liberty to forbid abortion in all cases, than simply making it difficult for her to have this procedure if she desires to have it done. Therefore, individuals who are pro-life support the enactment of a law that would be unconstitutional.
In my view, individuals who believe that Canadian Values should include certain now-archaic elements of christian morality should remember that, once upon a time, a series of very harsh legal punishments, of a brutal physical nature, resembling the legal codes of contemporary Iran and Saudi Arabia used to be awarded to individuals who committed crimes, such as adultery, which are no longer considered legitimately criminal acts in the West. If these legal tenets can come out of fashion through religious revision and re-interpretation, there is no reason why other elements of christian tradition that are inconsistent with modern universal conceptions of rights, morality, and reasonability, cannot be eliminated as well.
I would rather have, as members of the Order of Canada, individuals who fought in the cause of women's rights, instead of individuals who support the enactment of unconstitutional, liberty-infringing laws, and who wish to perpetuate an archaic element of christian-influenced morality that should have no further application in the current world. Although the individuals who have chosen to renounce their membership in the order complain about a compromise in the award's honour and prestige as a result of Dr. Morgantaler's appointment, they have, in effect, contributed to the tarnishing of their own honour and prestige by showing their support for an archaic belief and potentially unconstitutional legislation.
Associated Links:
CBC - Former Lieutenant-Governor Resigns Order of Canada in Protest
CBC - Abortion Rights: A Timeline of Developments
The Constitution Act, 1982
Supreme Court of Canada - Role of the Court
Monday, July 7, 2008
Dilemmas, Dilemmas, Dilemmas
I've been thinking a lot about a lot of different stuff lately, such as deciding which possible schedule combination I should register in out of the two or three possible ones I've devised for September, whether or not I want to go to Paris for a third-year exchange to accelerate on the road to bilingualism and thereby greatly improve my chances of excellent employment in the public service (as well as embracing the opportunity to revel in my favourite world city), or whether I'd rather go to India on the Ontario-Goa-Maharashtra exchange program instead to experience and learn about the socio-politics of the largest democracy in the world (and one of the few mature ones in the developing world), how best to minimize procrastination, whether or not I will pass my upcoming road test, and a number of other things that I'd rather not publicize.
Interestingly, upon examining a recent degree audit I generated for myself, I have discovered that, owing to my decision to take 2.0 credits this summer, I will reach third year standing by winter 2009, providing that I take a full load of 2.5 credits this fall. That means I am almost a semester ahead of everyone who didn't want to bother taking courses in the may-august session (as I will have completed 6.0 credits by the end of this summer, and more than 8.5 by the end of the fall term, thus putting me into third-year standing by Janaury 2009), and potentially being able to graduate a semester before everyone else, providing that I take an additional 0.5 credit on top of my regular loads before then.
Yay. I'm awesome.
Anyways, this has prompted me to contemplate whether or not I should take an overload in the Fall in order to pull ahead even farther, and also take an overload in the winter, and even a couple courses in the Summer of 2009 if necessary, to pull ahead another semester and finish a year earlier. I figure the big "pro" of this decision is that it can allow me to start and finish grad school earlier than most people geared in that direction would, and therefore enter the workforce and start making money earlier than most others.
However, I fear that the more courses I take all at once, the lower chance of me obtaining a high enough GPA to do as well as I might like. I guess if I work hard enough, I really can do very well even if I'm taking a larger load, as even this year, I would have made it on the Dean's List if it wasn't for Economics 1000 (:@:@:@). Additionally, I wonder if finishing early would diminish the possibility of me being able to go on a year-long exchange at all--something I would definitely like to do due to the international nature of my specialization. I guess I will decide for sure by the time it comes for me to register, and speak to Elaine in the BPAPM office as well.
However, if you have any suggestions/comments/statements from past experience associated with any of these matters, please feel free to dispense them to me.
Cheers!
Interestingly, upon examining a recent degree audit I generated for myself, I have discovered that, owing to my decision to take 2.0 credits this summer, I will reach third year standing by winter 2009, providing that I take a full load of 2.5 credits this fall. That means I am almost a semester ahead of everyone who didn't want to bother taking courses in the may-august session (as I will have completed 6.0 credits by the end of this summer, and more than 8.5 by the end of the fall term, thus putting me into third-year standing by Janaury 2009), and potentially being able to graduate a semester before everyone else, providing that I take an additional 0.5 credit on top of my regular loads before then.
Yay. I'm awesome.
Anyways, this has prompted me to contemplate whether or not I should take an overload in the Fall in order to pull ahead even farther, and also take an overload in the winter, and even a couple courses in the Summer of 2009 if necessary, to pull ahead another semester and finish a year earlier. I figure the big "pro" of this decision is that it can allow me to start and finish grad school earlier than most people geared in that direction would, and therefore enter the workforce and start making money earlier than most others.
However, I fear that the more courses I take all at once, the lower chance of me obtaining a high enough GPA to do as well as I might like. I guess if I work hard enough, I really can do very well even if I'm taking a larger load, as even this year, I would have made it on the Dean's List if it wasn't for Economics 1000 (:@:@:@). Additionally, I wonder if finishing early would diminish the possibility of me being able to go on a year-long exchange at all--something I would definitely like to do due to the international nature of my specialization. I guess I will decide for sure by the time it comes for me to register, and speak to Elaine in the BPAPM office as well.
However, if you have any suggestions/comments/statements from past experience associated with any of these matters, please feel free to dispense them to me.
Cheers!
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Youtube Should BAN COMMENTS
I am pissed off. Let me tell you why.
I am pissed off because people are SHIT STUPID.
I can't read comments on youtube videos (particularly political youtube videos) without my blood boiling. The level of racism and/or ignorance is just breathtaking. Why do people not think before they type? Why do people think that other people want to read their stupid racist remarks? All these types of comments do is make THEM look bad, and piss off ME and many others who actually have an IQ higher than 2, and are able to see past race in our dealings with people and can understand how individuals from certain ethnic groups have been discriminated against and kept down throughout history, and therefore cannot attest to such a large number of significant scientific and literary figures, but are now beggining to come into their own and transform their native lands into the world's future superpowers.
Look at the world's list of billionaires, and see how many Asians are beginning to rise up in the ranks. Look at how many Indian millionaires are rising out of Silicon Valley, California these days. Take notice of the richness and grandeur of Indian and Chinese culture. Do all of these things before making comments like "Obama is half white, hence the source of his talent". Some piece of racist trash sitting around in New Caledonia (this cluster of tiny islands in the Pacific which constitute a French overseas department) made that comment on a video that argued that the transition to liberal democracy in South Africa did not shift the concentration of power away from the whites due to their continued corporate dominance. I've seen other youtube comments by white people, which openly and without any consciousness of the feelings of black people whatsoever, use the "n-word" in reference to them while trying to claim that black people have an innate tendency towards crime, and say insulting and demeaning things towards Indians and Indian culture (something I noticed on a video of a hindu mantra).
Based on my own assessments of racism, I believe it is not due to people's personal assessments of history (I think the vast majority of people don't even think that much), but due to the mystified and misunderstanding way in which different ethnic groups view the cultures of other ethnic groups.
I honestly believe that individuals from one cultural group have a lot of difficulty understanding the cultures of other peoples, and due to their own personal uneducated assessments of those individuals' cultural behaviours and ceremonies, and the unique psychological mentality behind each of these cultures, by assessing them against their own culturally-specific psychological mentality. It takes an individual who grew up in-between 2 or more different cultures to understand how cultures are based on unique mentalities that are best understood by people coming from those cultural backgrounds. When looking at another culture, someone of the opposite culture will often make either one of two assessments of the other culture--1. It is Primitive or 2. It is indulgent. An individual who has immersed themselves in the given 2 cultures, however, can understand how they are not primitive, or indulgent, but represent different, distinct ways of life.
Anyways, back to Youtube. My problem is not with the individuals who make videos. Most of them seem to have a lot of common sense, and are often quite intelligent, but my problem is with the idiots who make stupid comments on them. I dunno whether they are just all a bunch of idiots, or they are writing out of emotion and are not thinking through what they are saying. I don't think those comments have any merit whatsoever (at least in 99% of cases), and take away from the experience of surfing their website.
Additionally, I am not specifically saying that only white people are racist, but I am writing this blog because of something I saw that was written by a white person that really struck a nerve with me. Even worse than the stuff I've read on youtube comments is on the India vs, Pakistan videos. I could probably write an ENTIRE POST about them. Some of them are so ridiculous that they are almost funny. For example, on one video I once watched about India, there was this entire argument going on between Indians and Pakistanis about whose dicks were cleaner (ya, i dunno where the hell that came from either, but I suspect it has something to do with how Pakistanis, as muslims, circumcise boys, and make the hygiene argument to secularly justify it). Increasingly, however, the Indian side has made a lot more sense in its Pakistan-bashing, when it talks about muslims killing each other and poor human rights situations, and how their own indian economies are doing quite well, and all the Pakistanis can come back with these days are comments about dicks, and hopeless efforts to discredit India's democracy and growing economy (the sikh nationalists try and do that too). ;P.
So in conclusion, I don't see why the comments feature still needs to exist. People should send their stupid comments as private messages to the uploader or just keep them to themselves. Youtube is for ideos, forums and blogs are for sharing written views. And to all those racist white people out there, if you want to write about how much you hate us, I don't want to read it, so just go to Stormfront and post there.
Cheers
I am pissed off because people are SHIT STUPID.
I can't read comments on youtube videos (particularly political youtube videos) without my blood boiling. The level of racism and/or ignorance is just breathtaking. Why do people not think before they type? Why do people think that other people want to read their stupid racist remarks? All these types of comments do is make THEM look bad, and piss off ME and many others who actually have an IQ higher than 2, and are able to see past race in our dealings with people and can understand how individuals from certain ethnic groups have been discriminated against and kept down throughout history, and therefore cannot attest to such a large number of significant scientific and literary figures, but are now beggining to come into their own and transform their native lands into the world's future superpowers.
Look at the world's list of billionaires, and see how many Asians are beginning to rise up in the ranks. Look at how many Indian millionaires are rising out of Silicon Valley, California these days. Take notice of the richness and grandeur of Indian and Chinese culture. Do all of these things before making comments like "Obama is half white, hence the source of his talent". Some piece of racist trash sitting around in New Caledonia (this cluster of tiny islands in the Pacific which constitute a French overseas department) made that comment on a video that argued that the transition to liberal democracy in South Africa did not shift the concentration of power away from the whites due to their continued corporate dominance. I've seen other youtube comments by white people, which openly and without any consciousness of the feelings of black people whatsoever, use the "n-word" in reference to them while trying to claim that black people have an innate tendency towards crime, and say insulting and demeaning things towards Indians and Indian culture (something I noticed on a video of a hindu mantra).
Based on my own assessments of racism, I believe it is not due to people's personal assessments of history (I think the vast majority of people don't even think that much), but due to the mystified and misunderstanding way in which different ethnic groups view the cultures of other ethnic groups.
I honestly believe that individuals from one cultural group have a lot of difficulty understanding the cultures of other peoples, and due to their own personal uneducated assessments of those individuals' cultural behaviours and ceremonies, and the unique psychological mentality behind each of these cultures, by assessing them against their own culturally-specific psychological mentality. It takes an individual who grew up in-between 2 or more different cultures to understand how cultures are based on unique mentalities that are best understood by people coming from those cultural backgrounds. When looking at another culture, someone of the opposite culture will often make either one of two assessments of the other culture--1. It is Primitive or 2. It is indulgent. An individual who has immersed themselves in the given 2 cultures, however, can understand how they are not primitive, or indulgent, but represent different, distinct ways of life.
Anyways, back to Youtube. My problem is not with the individuals who make videos. Most of them seem to have a lot of common sense, and are often quite intelligent, but my problem is with the idiots who make stupid comments on them. I dunno whether they are just all a bunch of idiots, or they are writing out of emotion and are not thinking through what they are saying. I don't think those comments have any merit whatsoever (at least in 99% of cases), and take away from the experience of surfing their website.
Additionally, I am not specifically saying that only white people are racist, but I am writing this blog because of something I saw that was written by a white person that really struck a nerve with me. Even worse than the stuff I've read on youtube comments is on the India vs, Pakistan videos. I could probably write an ENTIRE POST about them. Some of them are so ridiculous that they are almost funny. For example, on one video I once watched about India, there was this entire argument going on between Indians and Pakistanis about whose dicks were cleaner (ya, i dunno where the hell that came from either, but I suspect it has something to do with how Pakistanis, as muslims, circumcise boys, and make the hygiene argument to secularly justify it). Increasingly, however, the Indian side has made a lot more sense in its Pakistan-bashing, when it talks about muslims killing each other and poor human rights situations, and how their own indian economies are doing quite well, and all the Pakistanis can come back with these days are comments about dicks, and hopeless efforts to discredit India's democracy and growing economy (the sikh nationalists try and do that too). ;P.
So in conclusion, I don't see why the comments feature still needs to exist. People should send their stupid comments as private messages to the uploader or just keep them to themselves. Youtube is for ideos, forums and blogs are for sharing written views. And to all those racist white people out there, if you want to write about how much you hate us, I don't want to read it, so just go to Stormfront and post there.
Cheers
Friday, June 13, 2008
Thoughts
Ghandi believed that there existed 7 deadly sins.
Wealth without work,
Pleasure without conscience,
Knowledge without character,
Commerce without morality,
Science without humanity,
Worship without sacrifice, and
Politics without principle.
First, let's look at the first words in each one of these propositions:
Wealth.
Pleasure.
Knowledge.
Commerce.
Science.
Worship.
Politics.
The above words represent things that various individuals crave--some of which depend on an individual's preferences, others of which are universal. Individuals might obtain gratification from obtaining large amounts of any one of these things. An individual may dedicate his entire life to pursuing wealth, pleasure, knowledge, commerce, science, worship, or politics, simply for the personal gratification that these activities allow him or her to enjoy, often supported by one's personal understanding of the world. Each one of these pursuits are, therefore, SELFISH.
It is just as selfish to pursue science for the sake of science, simply for the personal gratification of obtaining knowledge, even if that knowledge has the potential to physically or emotionally harm large amounts of people (such as a deadly weapons technology or genetic information that might put into question the equality, in some respect, of a particular national group), than it is to pursue as much monetary wealth as possible, despite what horrible, disgusting things that individual had to do to get the money (i.e. or killing individuals, or threatening to do so, for the sake of obtaining a ransom, or tossing millions of workers into unemployment in a particular area in pursuit of a cheaper location).
Now, lets look at the third words in each proposition:
Work.
Conscience.
Character.
Morality.
Humanity.
Sacrifice.
Principle.
These are things that any individual could, at his or her primal level, do without. People don't want to work--they want to be as rich as possible by doing as little work as possible. Many people would love to have as much fun as they wanted without thinking about how they may be harming themselves by having fun in that manner (i.e. taking a particular hallucinogen to obtain a particular effect, thinking only about how fun it might be, and not of how that drug might harm one's body), simply pursuing information without having no substance, no spirit, zest or flamboyancy whatsoever, thereby dehumanizing an individual to the level of mere biological machinery, making as much money in any way possible without thinking about how one's pursuits might be negatively affecting others, pursuing scientific knowledge without actually considering the positive or negative human implications of that science, worshipping a particular religious deity to ask for forgiveness for each and every crime committed without actually making an effort to prevent oneself from committing these moral crimes, and pursuing political power without having any principles to propagate--or thus any reason to lead a population other than the will for power itself.
The above words represent things that are SELFLESS. Individuals do not necessarily obtain any personal gain from doing these things, but they add MEANING to things that the individual does. The human race needs a moral basis for its activities. This moral basis is what separates barbarism and civilization. Individuals cannot do things without considering how these things might be negatively effecting themselves or society around them. Simply pursuing things without considering why they might be good or bad in a respect other than self-gratification turns us all into pigs and whores in a free-fall of unsustainability. Without principles, we will be extinct, both physically and existentially. A human race without principles at its base is a race based on indulgence, not a race based on humanity.
Something for you all to consider..........
Wealth without work,
Pleasure without conscience,
Knowledge without character,
Commerce without morality,
Science without humanity,
Worship without sacrifice, and
Politics without principle.
First, let's look at the first words in each one of these propositions:
Wealth.
Pleasure.
Knowledge.
Commerce.
Science.
Worship.
Politics.
The above words represent things that various individuals crave--some of which depend on an individual's preferences, others of which are universal. Individuals might obtain gratification from obtaining large amounts of any one of these things. An individual may dedicate his entire life to pursuing wealth, pleasure, knowledge, commerce, science, worship, or politics, simply for the personal gratification that these activities allow him or her to enjoy, often supported by one's personal understanding of the world. Each one of these pursuits are, therefore, SELFISH.
It is just as selfish to pursue science for the sake of science, simply for the personal gratification of obtaining knowledge, even if that knowledge has the potential to physically or emotionally harm large amounts of people (such as a deadly weapons technology or genetic information that might put into question the equality, in some respect, of a particular national group), than it is to pursue as much monetary wealth as possible, despite what horrible, disgusting things that individual had to do to get the money (i.e. or killing individuals, or threatening to do so, for the sake of obtaining a ransom, or tossing millions of workers into unemployment in a particular area in pursuit of a cheaper location).
Now, lets look at the third words in each proposition:
Work.
Conscience.
Character.
Morality.
Humanity.
Sacrifice.
Principle.
These are things that any individual could, at his or her primal level, do without. People don't want to work--they want to be as rich as possible by doing as little work as possible. Many people would love to have as much fun as they wanted without thinking about how they may be harming themselves by having fun in that manner (i.e. taking a particular hallucinogen to obtain a particular effect, thinking only about how fun it might be, and not of how that drug might harm one's body), simply pursuing information without having no substance, no spirit, zest or flamboyancy whatsoever, thereby dehumanizing an individual to the level of mere biological machinery, making as much money in any way possible without thinking about how one's pursuits might be negatively affecting others, pursuing scientific knowledge without actually considering the positive or negative human implications of that science, worshipping a particular religious deity to ask for forgiveness for each and every crime committed without actually making an effort to prevent oneself from committing these moral crimes, and pursuing political power without having any principles to propagate--or thus any reason to lead a population other than the will for power itself.
The above words represent things that are SELFLESS. Individuals do not necessarily obtain any personal gain from doing these things, but they add MEANING to things that the individual does. The human race needs a moral basis for its activities. This moral basis is what separates barbarism and civilization. Individuals cannot do things without considering how these things might be negatively effecting themselves or society around them. Simply pursuing things without considering why they might be good or bad in a respect other than self-gratification turns us all into pigs and whores in a free-fall of unsustainability. Without principles, we will be extinct, both physically and existentially. A human race without principles at its base is a race based on indulgence, not a race based on humanity.
Something for you all to consider..........
Friday, June 6, 2008
"Da-DA-Da-Da, Da-Da-DA-Da-Da" No More????
I used to be a huuge hockey fan, and a pretty big sports fan in general. These days I'm not as engrossed in sports as I used to be because I've discovered other things. However, there are certain things that define your childhood, and the experience of growing up in Canada, and one of them happens to be the Hockey Night in Canada theme song. For 40 years, generations have turned on the television on Saturday night at 7 p.m. to hear the legendary jingle before the evening's games began. The classic Canadian saturday night can never be complete without Hockey Night in Canada, and Hockey Night in Canada can never be complete without that legendary jingle. Some have gone so far as to call the song "Canada's second national anthem"--an important unifying institution in a country fraught with regionalism and divided nationalistic sympathies.
The song was originally composed in 1968 by Vancouver-native Dolores Claman, an alma mater of the University of British Columbia who received a graduate scholarship to the famed Julliard School of Music. Since CBC bought the right to use the tune as the theme song for Hockey Night in Canada, it has been played, in various different forms, from jazz to rock, prior to the commencement of their saturday night hockey series. Over the years, Canadians have fallen in love with the tune. It has been known to have a great emotional affect on Canadians at home and abroad, with a myriad of anecdotal tales describing the importance this melody has had in inspiring nationalism and encouragement into Canadians across the globe. When the sheet music was released in 2000, it sold more copies than the year's top-of-the-chart albums.
Recently, after the expiry of the copyright agreement between its owners and the CBC, the CBC announced that it might not be renewed, and Canadians may have very well heard the last of "Da-DA-Da Da, Da-Da-DA-Da-Da" with the conclusion of the most recent Stanley Cup Finals. The copyright holders announced that they hoped the crown corporation would have a change of heart, and it is known that the composer is having a particularly hard time with the news of this possibility. The CBC said that, if a deal cannot be reached under any circumstances, a nationwide contest would be held to select a new theme. Somehow, however, I think that if a national contest was held, everyone would send in the same theme song as before :P It has become such an important part of national life in this country that getting rid of it is as foolish as getting rid of the Maple Leaf. Even some politicians, such as Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach and NDP national leader Jack Layton, have expressed their anger and disbelief with this attitude on the part of the CBC.
So far, Canadians that have been confronted with the news on the street have responded with shock, anger, and disbelief. I hope the CBC's bureaucracy is proud of what it is stealing from our national experience. It should be reminded that it is part of the CBC's mandate to "contribute to shared national consciousness and identity" (part iv), and failing to renew the copyright for this jingle would be contrary to this. The royalty is $500, and I think that is measly in comparison to the amount of revenue they make from the program. I truly hope the CBC and the jingle's copyright holders can come to a mutually-acceptable agreement, if not for anything else but the benefit of this nation's heritage, traditions, and future generations.
Considering its mandate, the CBC should not give up at the negotiating table as easily as it seems to be, as indicated by comments such as "oh, we thought the deadline was tomorrow!". Comments such as this indicate to me that they are actually trying to get away with not renewing the theme, for reasons that are beyond my comprehension and definitely not in their, or this nation's, best interest. If the CBC does indeed decide to do away with the classic HNIC theme, it will have made, in my eyes, an anti-Canadian decision.
Associated Links:
thestar.com, "Hockey Theme Not Dead Yet"
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/437636
Hockey Night in Canada Theme Website
http://www.hockeytheme.com
CBC/Radio Canada Mandate
http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/about/mandate.shtml
The song was originally composed in 1968 by Vancouver-native Dolores Claman, an alma mater of the University of British Columbia who received a graduate scholarship to the famed Julliard School of Music. Since CBC bought the right to use the tune as the theme song for Hockey Night in Canada, it has been played, in various different forms, from jazz to rock, prior to the commencement of their saturday night hockey series. Over the years, Canadians have fallen in love with the tune. It has been known to have a great emotional affect on Canadians at home and abroad, with a myriad of anecdotal tales describing the importance this melody has had in inspiring nationalism and encouragement into Canadians across the globe. When the sheet music was released in 2000, it sold more copies than the year's top-of-the-chart albums.
Recently, after the expiry of the copyright agreement between its owners and the CBC, the CBC announced that it might not be renewed, and Canadians may have very well heard the last of "Da-DA-Da Da, Da-Da-DA-Da-Da" with the conclusion of the most recent Stanley Cup Finals. The copyright holders announced that they hoped the crown corporation would have a change of heart, and it is known that the composer is having a particularly hard time with the news of this possibility. The CBC said that, if a deal cannot be reached under any circumstances, a nationwide contest would be held to select a new theme. Somehow, however, I think that if a national contest was held, everyone would send in the same theme song as before :P It has become such an important part of national life in this country that getting rid of it is as foolish as getting rid of the Maple Leaf. Even some politicians, such as Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach and NDP national leader Jack Layton, have expressed their anger and disbelief with this attitude on the part of the CBC.
So far, Canadians that have been confronted with the news on the street have responded with shock, anger, and disbelief. I hope the CBC's bureaucracy is proud of what it is stealing from our national experience. It should be reminded that it is part of the CBC's mandate to "contribute to shared national consciousness and identity" (part iv), and failing to renew the copyright for this jingle would be contrary to this. The royalty is $500, and I think that is measly in comparison to the amount of revenue they make from the program. I truly hope the CBC and the jingle's copyright holders can come to a mutually-acceptable agreement, if not for anything else but the benefit of this nation's heritage, traditions, and future generations.
Considering its mandate, the CBC should not give up at the negotiating table as easily as it seems to be, as indicated by comments such as "oh, we thought the deadline was tomorrow!". Comments such as this indicate to me that they are actually trying to get away with not renewing the theme, for reasons that are beyond my comprehension and definitely not in their, or this nation's, best interest. If the CBC does indeed decide to do away with the classic HNIC theme, it will have made, in my eyes, an anti-Canadian decision.
Associated Links:
thestar.com, "Hockey Theme Not Dead Yet"
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/437636
Hockey Night in Canada Theme Website
http://www.hockeytheme.com
CBC/Radio Canada Mandate
http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/about/mandate.shtml
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
