dai_head_jai - What goes on in that big head of his?

Parlez-vous "amour"?

2009-10-21T00:07:00.003-04:00

⁸Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. (1 Peter 3:8)

¹²See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. ¹³But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness. (Hebrews 3:12)

¹¹Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing. (1 Thessalonians 5:11)

A few weeks ago, I was blessed with being able to celebrate the birthday of a friend by watching "Cloudy with a chance of meatballs."

Going into the movie, I had expected a kid's movie with some fancy 3D visuals, and nothing more, but I came out of the theatre thoroughly impressed with the movie's humour and message.

Particularly of interest to me was Steve, the pet monkey belonging to the movie's protagonist.

Steve, unlike other monkeys, was able to "speak" through a monkey-translator.

Of course, the interesting part (and something I didn't expect to see in what was technically a kids' movie) was when the translator was applied to the main character's father, a frumpy middle-aged widow, who only spoke in fishing metaphors.

It took a monkey translator for him to finally be able to articulate his love, affection and pride for his son, words which the main character had desperately wanted (and needed) to hear.

Maybe it was the result of my reading of Gary Chapman's "The Five Love Languages" recently, but I was particularly touched by this scene, which highlighted what so many of us seem unable to do, which is properly express our love for one another.

Chapman's book proposed that every person was fluent in a particular "love language," which would affect how they gave or received emotional nurturing and fulfillment. Within relationships, it was possible for one party to be giving love the way they would want (speaking their own language), but for the other party to completely miss the message, with the intended expression of love being lost in translation.

Given the sad state of marriages and familial relationships in the Western world, it wasn't hard to agree with the idea that many people simply do not know how to express their affections for each other in ways which would be properly recognized and received.

What if we could change that?

Perhaps we can learn how to "speak" the proper language for the people around us, in order to meet their needs for affirmation and love?

Maybe then we could reach out to those who silently pray for companionship, and to the people who need affirmation the most.

Maybe then we could fill the emotional needs of the people around us, freeing them to reach their full potential, and to escape the snare of bad habits or practices intended to fill the void.

Maybe then we could help the people around us shake the feelings of despair and loneliness that often go unaddressed.

Maybe then we could truly reflect God in the way that we live.

Maybe.

Then again, maybe someone will make a monkey translator so that we won't have to try so hard to show the people around us we care.

Until that happens though, maybe we should try harder to live out what we've been called for.

Tehran's June 4th/No sympathy for Mr. Miller

2009-06-22T15:41:00.002-04:00

Some thoughts on the situation in Tehran:

Iran stands at the crossroads between repressive dictatorial theocracy that yearns to reset the clock a few centuries back, and a progressive, open society based on democracy and established in modernity.
The old generation desperately fights to retain their power, even as the buds of a democratic spring emerge from the cracks in the concrete of brutality and corruption.

One thing that strikes me: so many of the images we see are of protestors (mostly younger, but also with some older members as well) are incredibly western - that is, it is no stretch of the imagination to see these people in a western setting, perhaps on a campus or in front of parliament.
The placards they hold are in English - as if they are calling out, not just to their own kin, but also to those of us in the West to support them in their struggles.

I can only hope that they will not be put down ruthlessly, as the students in that infamous square were, just over 20 years ago. This is almost certainly a vain hope, given the inhuman and grotesque treatment afforded to the Iranian people by their leaders over the years - executions for crimes ranging from political, to human issues (homosexuals are regularly executed in Iran, as are "adulterers" - often with nothing more than accusations as grounds for death).
I can only hope that the West, beginning with U.S. President Obama, will take a strong line against the Iranian regime - after all the talk of change and hope, this is the opportunity of many lifetimes - to release from the bonds of oppression and tyranny the Iranian people - to allow them to reclaim their place as one of the oldest, most illustrious cultures to ever grace the face of the earth, instead of their current infamy as purveyors of Hamas, Hezbollah, state terrorism, gross economic incompetence (despite incredible oil wealth), and naked nuclear ambition.

Closer to home:

Toronto Mayor David Miller is whining that the Federal Government is refusing to pay for his trains.
Perhaps he should have thought about this before unilaterally entering into negotiations and a contract with Bombardier to supply the fiscal blackhole known as the TTC with new streetcars.
The gall of this man is unbelievable - he spends like a king on programs and initiatives of little economic return, then treats the businesses and taxpayers who bankroll his largesse with disdain and disregard (an example of this is found in his personal crusade against car-owning Torontonians, who drive to work, and pay their taxes).
And then goes crying the the provincial and federal governments about how he's not getting what he deserves, despite overseeing Canada's largest city, with some of the heaviest taxes anywhere (just ask homebuyers and homeowners in Toronto).

He shouldn't complain:
If he were to get what he deserves, he'd be out of a job (of course, unlike the rest of us, he'd have a very nice pension to live off, which brings us to the issue of unionized city workers, but that's another topic).

Epiphany

2009-06-08T22:02:00.002-04:00

I had lunch today with a mentor who introduced me to a world that has captured my interest for the past few years, and it confirmed for me something that I had finally realized just yesterday.

I had been feeling lost - feeling like I was off the tracks, and desperate to gain traction.
Choices made, mistakes committed, regrets experienced.
It is time to let these go.

For the last little while, I've been obsessed with getting along my path, obsessed with getting where I'm going as quickly as possible.
Along with that desperation came dissatisfaction and mistakes.
But today I realized that the race does not belong to the swift, but rather to the wise, who know what needs to be done, how to do it, and just as importantly, when to do it.

I will be faithful.
I will be patient.
I will be joyful.
I will get there when the time is right.

I can't wait to see tomorrow come.

Thank you God.

Disappointed?

2009-06-07T21:12:00.004-04:00

I am glad I am nothing like you.
I am glad that I can bring something other than misery to the people around me, and that I know how to be something other than miserable.

I have tried my best to extend the olive branch, but you have yet to surprise me: any act of kindness or attempt to bridge the gap on my part, continues to be rewarded with disdain and hostility.
I have tried to bring you joy but time after time, you spit it back in my face.

I suppose I should know by now that this is who you are: unable to accept others, unable to accept yourself, and unable to enjoy life. For you, existence (I cannot even say "life") is something to be endured, rather than enjoyed. Worse yet, you expect the people around you to be the same as you; constantly angry at everything, always blaming the world, circumstances, and yourself.
You wear your negativity, cynicism and pessimism like a badge of honour, as if it somehow makes you superior, and somehow more "wise" than the rest of us.

You seem disappointed that I'm not turning out to be what you want or expected.
Perhaps you'd prefer if I turned out more like you.
To that, I can only say that I am happy to disappoint.

Nonetheless, I feel pity for you.
How can I not have pity for a man who does not know how to enjoy what he has?
You, who know the cost of everything, but the value of nothing.
How can I not have pity for a man who does not know how to receive love from the people closest to him?
You, who know how to give snide remarks and merciless criticism, but not how to give or receive grace or compliments.
How can I not have pity for a man who cannot love others, because he does not love himself?
You, who know how to raise your voice and lose your temper at the smallest mistakes, yet not how to appreciate the smallest acts of love.

I can only pray that someday you will find that life doesn't have to be about building walls and setting barricades.
And I will continue to live my life my way, because I can see where your way leads - and I want nothing to do with that.

The Chinese double-edged sword

2009-05-10T18:05:00.004-04:00

It is a double-edged sword to be Chinese.

Having recently watched the historically-inaccurate, but definitely entertaining "biopic" of legendary Chinese martial artist/Wing Chun practicioner "Ip Man," I am again reminded of the tragic recent history of the Chinese people. Ever since the 1800s, the Middle Kingdom has been on a steady decline, only recently slowing the descent in light of the incredible economic growth and increasing military presence of today's China (that is, the People's Republic of China, not to be confused with the Republic of China/Taiwan).
In the 1800s, it was the Western powers which aggressively forced their way into the Chinese sphere of influence, resulting in events such as the Opium War, and arguably setting the stage for China's plummet from being one of (if not THE) premier centres of power, wealth and culture in the world, to being an economic backwater (all the way until the 1980s) and centre of oppression (true even today).
Arguably the most traumatic piece of recent history, would be the horrors of the Sino-Japanese War, inclusive of some of the worst atrocities witnessed in the history of humanity, committed in the name of the Japanese Emperor, by the Imperial Army. These acts of inhumanity ranged from the abuse heaped upon the so-called "comfort women," whose ranks included women and girls from all of the conquered countries (Korea, Taiwan, the Dutch East Indies/Indonesia, the Philippines etc.), to the widespread torture, rape, mass murder and genocidal "experiments" perpetrated upon Chinese civilians, most infamously in the Rape of Nanking.

It is no wonder why some of the most popular movies produced by Chinese filmmakers in the past few years have featured plotlines where Chinese folkheroes, from Huo Yuanjia, to Ip Man etc. are able to win victory against the various foreign devils, against overwhelming odds. Perhaps there is nothing quite as satisfying (to a Chinese person aware of our tragic history and the injustice committed against our people) as watching these invaders and monsters (the Japanese in particular) brutally receiving their just desserts.

However, what if this hatred and rejection of foreign influence is not completely justified?
After all, along with Western troops, Western interference also brought about revolutionary medical technology and techniques, as well as new knowledge, either through education, or through the efforts of countless missionaries who sought to bring their faith to the Chinese masses (among them, Robert Morrison, the first Protestant missionary to the Chinese, who was buried with his first wife and child in a place far from home, in the service of people who weren't always receptive). The Japanese brought with them industrial capabilities intended to aid their war effort; capabilities that could of been put to use in the post-war period to benefit the Chinese economy (admittedly, this is wildly-speculative, as the history of North Korea would show).

Moreover, a look at history shows that, sadly, Chinese people have often proven themselves more adept than anyone else at oppressing and brutalizing Chinese people.
Case in point: Next month will mark the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Massacre, which is referred to by the Communist Party leadership as the the "Political Turmoil between Spring and Summer of 1989", much as the Japanese prefer to refer to the Rape of Nanking/Nanking Massacre as the Nanking Incident, preferring to adopt the ambiguous and less accusatory terms to describe events. Even today, the subject is controversial, and could well lead to imprisonment or worse.
Another case: Chinese who do not belong to any of the "Official" religions, including Christians and Catholics (among others) who choose not to worship at Official "patriotic churches" are regularly harassed, beaten or imprisoned, and their places of worship (often private homes) destroyed.
China recognizes neither property rights or individual rights such as freedom of religion, conscience, and assembly. De facto, each Chinese citizen is a serf of the state and the Party.
More recently, the parents of children who perished in last year's Sichuan earthquake have been ordered not to commemorate their lost children. They have been harassed and threatened with imprisonment if they dare to hold memorials for their children. The reason for this: the Leadership does not want protests against the lack of an inquiry into the reason for the huge death toll. The government had promised to hold an inquiry, but has not done so, simply explaining the deaths caused by the earthquake on the magnitude of the earthquake itself (nevermind that other places have survived worse or similar earthquakes, but did not see their buildings collapse on the magnitude seen in China).
And despite the past decade of increased business ties and thawing relationships, there are still thousands of missiles aimed across the Taiwan Strait at the population centres of Taiwan, ready at a moment's notice to rain fire and death on many people who, in terms of history, culture and language, are very much like those on the mainland.
Moreover, in terms of bodycounts, few genocides in history could have matched the tally of the Cultural Revolution (as much as 3 million dead) or the Great Leap Forward (25-30 million dead from a self-inflicted famine). One could be forgiven for referring to these events, along with their unbelievably ironic names, with tongue firmly-planted in cheek.

It seems that it isn't just the foreign devils who are adept at oppressing the Chinese people; we can be very good at it too. Being Chinese means more than belonging to one of the oldest cultures in human history; it also means possessing one of the most tragic pasts in human history, as the Chinese people have alternated between oppression by the foreigners, to oppression by their own. What wretches we are...

A Hippo named Chrissy

2009-03-21T21:45:00.003-04:00

Messianic President Obama has been inundated with gaffes and challenges as of late.
As the U.S. president, this is to be expected, and his responses have thus far been exemplary.
However, more telling than anything wrongdoing by the president, is the reaction from the populace and the media.

Recently, Obama rather insensitively likened his bowling skills (or lack thereof) to the Special Olympics on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.
As a person with a sense of humour, I can appreciate that sometimes we make ill-advised comments on the fly that simply fall flat.
Obama quickly apologized to any parties that might have been offended, and life goes on.
What is amusing, however, is the seeming free ride he is getting from the press and the organization (in this case, the Special Olympics) he offended.
Tim Shriver, chairman of the Special Olympics, almost falls over himself to defend Obama, commenting that Obama's apology was done "in a way that was very moving."
Gov. Schwarzenegger joined the parade, remarking that "I know where his heart is at" of the U.S. President.
This is definitely the right way to respond to such a mistake. Apologies were offered, and grace was extended.
However, ask yourself: What would the response be like if it had been, say, George W. Bush who had made the comments? Or any other Republican, for that matter?
Would grace have been extended quite so freely and quickly? Or would the comments have been misconstrued and ceaselessly bombarded for their lack of sensitivity, offensiveness, or crassness? Where was grace for the (admittedly numerous, and often humourous) speaking gaffes of "Dubya"? It seems that not all Presidents are equal after all (at least not their reception and treatment)...

Of course, this is not something that is confined south of the border.
Up in Canada, we have our own tempest in a teapot brewing, this time involving the mixing of church and state.
It seems that Gary Goodyear, the Minister in charge of Science for the Conservative government did not fall over himself to affirm his belief in the holy doctrine of evolutionary theory.
This was quickly seized upon by a journalist in the Globe and Mail, who quickly outed the Minister as the modern day equivalent of a witch: a Christian, Biblical literalist and Creationist.
After all, everybody knows that it is heresy to exude even a whiff of doubt about the doctrine of Evolution; anyone who purports to be scientifically-minded, but does not fervently proselytize this incontrovertible truth must surely be a Creationist in disguise, a knuckle-dragging mouthbreather, unfit for anything but ridicule and crucifixion (of the social and political kind, that is).
Even Minister Goodyear's delayed and nuanced explanation of his position (in favour of evolution, no less) was not enough to silence the cries for blood, because his explanation wasn't doctrinaire enough - that is, it did not explicitly and powerfully declare evolutionary theory to be the sole position of credibility to the exclusion of all others. Apparently, leaving room for people of other beliefs and the crazy possibility that we don't have all the answers (yet) is not satisfactory to the protectors of the true faith.
Goodyear's explanation was that he believed, but that this was his personal belief and that he did not want religious faith (conceivably his own) to be the subject of debate, due to its private nature.
Apparently, many would disagree, because the firestorm and controversy that followed led to indignant calls for his resignation, and vicious attacks on his competence (where else would discrimination on religious grounds be tolerated? Of course, only when the target is white, Christian, male and conservative). Church and state aren't so separate after all, since what the critics (in this case, mainly from the left-leaning/"liberal" side of the political spectrum) are calling for the intrusion into the private beliefs of a citizen and elected representative of the Canadian people. This from those most "tolerant" and "enlightened" of people, liberals (by which I mean small-l liberals, and not only the liberals of the Liberal Party of Canada).

Liberalism and hypocrisy. Where you find one, the other will surely be close by.

Why I am skeptical of media coverage of Israeli-Palestinian conflicts

2009-01-13T11:58:00.003-05:00

For those of us on the outside, finding objective and unbiased reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is always a huge challenge, not least of all because of the strong emotions this conflict evokes in both the reader/listener, and the media personalities who deliver their reports to us.
As much as media personnel endeavour (one would assume) to be emotionally-detached from the situation, it is simply human nature to feel repulsed by the sight of dead human beings (whether they be soldiers, civilians, or even terrorists/militants/insurgents).

Barring that, there are some very real reasons why reporting on the Mid-east conflict ought to be viewed through a very skeptical lens:

1) Press freedom:
This is virtually nonexistent. Palestinian officials (whether they be Fatah or Hamas), like their accomplices, Hezbollah, do not allow foreign press any degree of independence. In order to gain access to areas controlled by the above, foreign correspondents must agree to report and show only what the Palestinians allow them. It is often remarked that while Israel has historically been more adept at winning the conventional war, the Public Relations war has been unanimously in the favour of Hamas/Fatah/Hezbollah etc.
A quick look at the (often violent) anti-Israeli protests around the world, including in Western states, shows the fruits of this selective reporting. Foreign correspondents are escorted around the warzone by Gazan personnel, resulting in a huge amount of bias and selection of stories.
For their part, the Israelis are also restricting press access into the warzone, the primary reason of which would be the risks to correspondents (and IDF soldiers) who venture into the line of fire. For those who dislike Israeli actions or Israel itself, this will also be seen as a sign of guilt for the many allegations of war crimes that have been made against Israel.

2) Veracity/Accuracy of reporting:
As noted above, the PR war is the playground of the Palestinians, who are infamous for staging photos and video footage. In essence, photographs or videos of the conflict from Palestinian sources (sources which many Western media outlets rely upon) have been shown to be demonstrably falsified (i.e. the al-Dura video purportedly showing a 12-yr old Palestinian boy being murdered by IDF troops at his father's side). More often than not, a closer look and some critical thinking will unmask the deception, but it seems that many in the West are uncomfortable or unwilling to truly approach things with a critical perspective.
More importantly, the Western media seem to report the casualty statistics provided by the Palestinians and UN without asking more questions. Usually the reports will simply state something to the effect that "Palestinian casualties have reached 600, with over 300 of those being women and children." The unspoken implication is that these casualties (or at least the vast majority of them) are non-combatants.
But take a closer look and examine the Hamas and Hezbollah philosophy of recruitment. According to them, women and children (which includes youths up to the age of 17) can still make fine soldiers and instruments of war for the cause of "pushing the Jews into the sea." As in Iraq, women and children can (and have been) used as suicide bombers, troops, etc.
Furthermore, one must ask: what uniform do Fatah, Hamas and Hezbollah troops wear to distinguish themselves from non-combatants?
When you ask that question, the correct answer inevitably directs you to ask another question:
How do we know that these reported casualties are indeed non-combatants? If the only thing that identifies combatants from civilians is a rifle (which is easily transferred), then there is scant proof that a corpse is a non-combatant.
This is not to whitewash the tremendous tragedy of civilian casualties ("collateral damage"), or the responsibility of both belligerents to try to minimize them, but we must ask these questions in order to form a rational and objective opinion of the situation.

Excellent Youtube debunking of the al-Dura video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzsCBFhCsyY

Check out the "rational and objective" comments. Guess which side is ranting and raving and foaming at the mouth? Almost as rational as 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

3) Bias in the West:
Right off the bat, Israel (since the end of the Cold War) has started with a deficit in public support in the West. Academics and media (most often on the left of the political spectrum, but also on the far right as well) start with the premise that Israel is responsible (for the conflict, for prosecuting the war in a "proportionate" and "restrained" manner, etc.).
At the least, this manifests itself into an unwillingness to filter data critically and ask difficult questions (for example: why has Hamas failed to provide anything but war to the Gazans? Why has the Fatah-controlled West Bank been comparatively peaceful? Why have Israeli civilians, including Israeli-Arabs, been targeted by indiscriminate rocket and mortar fire for the past 4 years, despite the unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza strip in 2005?). At its most dangerous, it has led to the proliferation of faulty or inaccurate reporting, and the use of material from dubious sources (French stations seem to be more guilty of this than others, such as passing off footage from past conflicts' casualties as recent footage), as well as the phenomena of Western civilians (protestors, aid personnel, etc.) being used (sometimes willingly and knowingly) in the cause of a substate belligerent whose sole, stated aim, is the destruction of an internationally-recognized state and its population (doesn't sound as romantic as "freedom fighters" now, does it?).

A good example of this is in the coverage of IDF bombings of UN schools (UN complicity in the Hamas use of civilians as human shields is another topic entirely).

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/06/israel.gaza/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
The above is a good example of the double standard employed by Western media. The reporter is very doggedly and critically questioning the IDF spokeswoman. Admirable. Except this same amount of detail is rarely (if ever) demanded from Hamas/Hezbollah etc.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053418.html
From Haaretz (often accused of liberal, anti-Israeli bias):

The Israel Defense Forces bombed an UNRWA school in Gaza yesterday after militants fired mortars at troops from inside the school, the IDF Spokesman's Office said last night. The bodies of militants were found inside, it added.

Since it is so obviously detrimental to Israel's popularity around the world, has anyone bothered to stop and ask WHY are these targets being bombed? I suspect that most people find it easier to point an accusing finger at Israel, than to do some thinking and digging. Tragically, this will only spread ignorance and hatred.

Peace in the Mid-East?

2009-01-06T01:12:00.002-05:00

Israel has been forced to mobilize its armed forces again.
This time, they are invading the Gaza Strip, lands which had seen an unilateral Israeli pullout in 2005, in hopes of allowing a 2-state solution.

Sadly, since then, Hamas militants, which won the semblance of political power through an election victory over Fatah, have been lobbing rockets and mortar rounds (as well as sniper fire) indiscriminately into Israeli cities and towns.

Unlike the Israelis who go so far as to warn non-combatants of impending strikes (this, at the risk of the element of surprise, and the lives of its soldiers), Hamas has no problems with actively targeting Israeli civilians.
They also have no qualms about placing weapons and military infrastructure in residential areas, hospitals, or mosques (hence the Israeli bombing of a Gazan mosque, which ignited the cache of rockets and weapons within).
Hamas obviously has no reservations about breaking the rules and laws of war.

Yet, for some reason, our Western intellectuals and media all seem hellbent on equating the 2 sides on a moral plane. It seems that the more we learn, the more stupid we have become.
It is maddening that Israel is being urged to show "restraint" - in the face of over 6,000 rocket and mortar attacks on its citizens, it has patiently waited and endured for years - and now, IT (not Hamas) is being called to show restraint.

The world has seriously lost its moral compass.

Heavy...

2008-10-16T22:41:00.004-04:00

It has been a tremendously hard week - thank God for Thanksgiving - it's only going to be 5 days long (including Saturday).
It feels like my "bad day" streak will not end - it has just been crisis after crisis, stress piled on more stress, and pressure that feels like my chest is going to burst. In fact, it got so bad that I woke up this morning because I was dreaming about work (more like a nightmare).

I've had to deal with clients who were upset with me because they misunderstood something - people accusing me of saying things that I would never say.
I've had to deal with clients going through divorce - and somehow I find myself in the middle of the firestorm between them.

I felt so much like I was ready to give up... On the way to work today (I went a half-hour early to setup for another rough day) my heart weighed a thousand pounds... It was all I could do the keep on breathing.
This, despite the beautiful autumn scene unfolding around me.

God help me keep on going - give me the strength and motivation to strive onward... I need to breathe. And help me keep lugging this heavy heart around...

I need a vacation.

Does Christianity breed immorality?

2008-09-28T20:24:00.002-04:00

In the September 25 edition of the National Post, a debate between militant atheist writer Christopher Hitches, and Christian apologist Douglas Wilson is featured, to consider the question "Is Christianity good for the World?"

In seeking to propose that Christianity breeds immorality, Hitchens offers 3 points.

1) Christianity, though often credited (either by others or its own followers) for spreading the precept of "love thy neighbour (as yourself)", there is no evidence that Christianity is the actual origin of this ideal.

2) Christianity features many immoral teachings, namely "vicarious redemption, whereby one's own responsibilities can be flung on to a scapegoat and thereby taken away," and the idea that non-acceptance of this forgiveness will lead to eternal damnation. He then launches into an argument that Christianity somehow derides thrift, family, and planning for the future.

3) Christianity, if it is to claim credit for the work of outstanding Christians, must also accept responsibility for the opposites. Furthermore, to believe that the cosmos was made with man in mind is "the highest form of arrogant self-centeredness." There is more reverence and awe to be derived from studying the heavens and our DNA than can be found in any book written by superstitious, myth-propagating committees of uneducated men.

All three of these points falter; indeed, one of them fails to even get out of the starting gate (even against as uneducated and dim a mind as mine).

Addressing the first point is tremendously simple, in that Hitchens himself answers it in his question: Christianity never claims to be the sole originator of the concept of "love thy neighbour" - however, either through coincidence, or design, Christianity IS largely responsible for the spread and ubiquitousness of this concept, as Christianity spread from a group of lowly and uneducated Jewish fishermen and tax collectors, to become, through design or a quirk of history, the most widespread religion in the Roman Empire, as well as serving as the spiritual and moral underpinnings of modern Western civilization as we know it. In otherwords, Christianity doesn't have to be the origin of this ideal - what matters is that, thanks to Christianity, by design or by accident, "love thy neighbour" is now touted almost-universally as the moral bottomline in society - regardless of whether or not society actually follows it.
As it stands, this argument is weak, at best, and pointless at worst.

The second point is better, though it does contain parts which flounder. The latter part of the argument claims that Christianity denounces thrift, family and future planning.
To put it simply, I have absolutely no idea where Hitchens gets this from. It almost certainly does not come from the Bible I read, or the Christ I follow, all of which commend thrift (all Christians being viewed as stewards of the resources provided by God, including money, which we spend not for frivolous pursuits, but for eternal purposes), family (see all the passages exhorting men and women of God to responsibly raise their families in the Lord), and wisdom in preparing for the future (see the parable of the wise and foolish men who build on solid rock and sand respectively). The only possibility is if he were to take out of context the calling of the first disciples (including some who left their homes and family to follow Jesus), or the call for us not to worry so much about the provision for our worldly needs, instead relying on God to provide (notwithstanding that God can and does provide for us by way of gainful employment for wages).
The best argument of his second point is when he takes exception with Christianity's central point: That Christ came to earth and took upon Himself the full responsibility and punishment for all the sins of all mankind, past, present and future. There is a certain hint of noble and honourable intent in his rejection of this idea: Hitchens believes that at the end of the day, each and every person is responsible for themselves, including the consequences of their actions and missteps. However, this also carries a conteptuous hint of arrogance as well: it is as if Hitchens is dictating to God how He should proceed towards the goal of rescuing His people. Considering that Hitchens makes a point of highlighting Christian "arrogance" and the "tyranny" of Christian belief in his third point, this carries a touch of hypocrisy, as a mere man should find himself lecturing an Almighty God about how He ought to do things.
If God were forced to do things in a way that is bound by human reason, He really wouldn't be much of a God, would He? And if He is indeed almighty and all-powerful, who is to say that He can or cannot do such a thing? If Hitchens is implying that it isn't fair to have the sins of all rest on the shoulders of One, he can find comfort in knowing that all believing Christians share that view with him. Where we part ways is in our reactions: Some will simply reject this situation for being what it is, and with it, the gift of grace and mercy on offer. Others will choose to accept that they did not deserve this grace, and that it is unfair, but that this sacrifice was offered in love, and in such a way that demands an affirmative response.
Sadly, Hitchens belongs to the former group. The response to his rejection of the idea of hell as an eternal consequence is similar: if the exit has been offered to you, yet you refuse to accept it, whose fault is it when the consequences are doled out? It isn't God who seeks to condemn you, but you yourself who put yourself into that unenviable situation. If the question then becomes "well, why can't God just do away with the consequences?", the answer lies in God Himself, who carries the attribute of justice in His character. If it is unfair for one to shoulder the sin of the many, then how can you seek to reconcile justice without consequences? To those who are willing to accept it, Christ has already born our punishment.

The third point argues that Christians ought to take responsibility/credit for the darker aspects of our history as well. To this, I have no argument: Every group of people has its dark side, and Christians are no exception. However, I would argue that this is not so much indicative of a flaw in Christianity, as it is a humbling reminder of just how weak our spirits and flesh really are; how susceptible we are to temptation and corruption as a race. Christianity has always implored its followers to confess to their sins, accept forgiveness from God, and strive towards conquering their sins and weaknesses by relying on God. Were it possible to defeat our sinful nature by ourselves, there would be no need for the Cross. Furthermore, it is dishonest to claim, as Hitchens does, that Christians have not taken responsiblity for their failings.
I contend that there are few groups which will so quickly, or so profusely, apologize for wrongdoings. More importantly, I contend that there are few groups of people who will just as readily move to forgive the offending party, and seek to heal them and rehabilitate them.
Finally, he boldly accuses Christians of self-centeredness and arrogance for our belief that a loving God created the entire universe with us in mind. This assumes that there is no God; yet, there is really no possible way to physically prove the existence (or inexistence) of the spiritual and supernatural. If so, on what basis does Hitchens (and all other atheists) make this assumption? Christians, on the other hand, point to results in the lives of those who have been touched by God, in many cases, dramatic changes which could not have been accomplished through sheer willpower and perseverance alone. If so, is it not even more arrogant to assume that there is no God who created the universe? And if one assumes there is a God, is it not also arrogance to (again) dictate to God the reasons He created the cosmos, or to somehow say that humanity is not a good enough reason to do so? To assume that we somehow know the reasons behind creation will always be arrogant - the difference is, the Christian believes his view to have been given to us by the Creator Himself, so that it is not I who say the cosmos were created for humanity, but the Creator.
Hitchens then falls into the trap that so many succumb to: in refusing to acknowledge or worship the Creator, he goes to revere the created (in this case, DNA and the heavens). While there is indeed much to be admired in the handiwork of God, this focus on the works and not the Workman makes him not unlike the old idol worshippers, who worshipped images created by human hands, or those superstitious mystics who worshipped and deified inanimate objects like rocks or the sky - in short, the creation instead of the Creator. Have you ever heard someone express reverence for the Mona Lisa itself? Or do we profess admiration for its creator, Leonardo Da Vinci?
Finally, though the Bible may have been written or passed through the ages by a bunch of men living in (comparatively) unenlightened times, there is no denying that the same questions posed then are being posed today: namely, why am I here? What is the meaning of life? Is there more than what we can experience with our five senses?
Seeing as so many have found their answers in the Bible, and seeing how atheism has offered no answers and only criticisms, perhaps this collection of books, supported by history and archaeology, is more deserving of a second (and I suspect in most cases, a first) look?

At the end, Hitchens' points, while useful for provoking thought and shaking the cobwebs from my mind, fall exceedingly short of their intended goal of proving Christianity immoral.

For Douglas Wilson's response to Hitchens:
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=832988

For anyone who has bothered to read this piece to its conclusion, some light-hearted reading that goes to show: aggressive proselytizing and evangelism to the point of hostility, bullying and aggression are by no means restricted to the religious:

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=839410

Good heavens! Christian woman harassed over religious car decal
Peter Kenter, National Post Published: Friday, September 26, 2008

A British man was arrested after attempts to cover up a Jesus fish car sticker turned into a campaign of harassment, according to the East Anglian Daily Times.
Timothy Brown pleaded guilty to harassment charges after a yearlong campaign to convert a Christian woman to atheism.
Brown initially placed stickers displaying such words as "myth," "deceived" and "sucker" over Watson's car decal. Police installed closed-circuit cameras at Watson's home, revealing that Brown repeatedly visited the property in an escalating campaign to get her to "reconsider her religious beliefs." The thwarted Brown eventually abandoned his efforts at persuasion and smeared dog excrement on Watson's car. "Brown became frustrated that he got no reaction," said prosecutor Naomi Turner. "The incident with the dog excrement was done in anger and the urinating was meant to be a dirty protest."

Odious Order of Canada

2008-07-02T22:17:00.002-04:00

Dr. Henry Morgantaler, one of the key reasons we have legal infanticide, usually referred to as "choice", has been inducted into the Order of Canada.

Other previous esteemed inductees include David Ahenakew, who called Jews a disease and believed the Holocaust to be fabricated (well, there's certainly some similarity between him and abortion-on-demand supporters then), and of course, our "right honourable" former Prime Minister, Jean Chretien.

Given this, one begins to question whether to receive the Order of Canada is something to be celebrated, or something to be returned to sender. All this on the heels of our country's birthday.
Doesn't it make you feel proud to be Canadian? Breathe it all in - that is the smell of rot and moral decay.
A glorious country sent its young men to die for freedom - what we got was legalized murder in the womb.

It's a beautiful life.

Global warming might not be so bad after all...

2008-04-08T22:40:00.003-04:00

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,481684,00.html

Something interesting given we've just been through Earth Hour.
Since we're force-fed doomsday scenarios from Al Gore and others who know better on a daily basis, we would probably all benefit from a light snack of skepticism.

Full disclosure:

I don't believe that man-made global warming is going to be a problem. For me, it smacks of self-importance to think that our species would somehow manage to destroy a world which has gone through countless climate changes and fluctuations in the past. The climate has always changed, and always will. If anything, it could well bring some good (which is not to say there won't also be bad) - i.e. more fertile farmland in the vast swaths of tundra in Northern Canada and Russia, a more temperate Europe etc.

Which is not to say that we shouldn't conserve and use our resources wisely, but methinks the global catastrophic warming camp doth protest too much, and that that the negative aspects of climate change (fictional or real) are way oversold.

EDIT: To reply to the comment - how arrogant we are, to think that out of all the species and all the massive events to grace or afflict this planet, somehow we are the ones that hold the key to it's destruction or salvation. Moreover, how disgusting that we view "the planet" as much more important than human lives - I suppose it's somehow more civilized or humane to consign billions to starvation and poverty.

Rob Ford

2008-03-31T00:42:00.002-04:00

I can't believe how much the story of Rob Ford had been hyped up.
The man makes an observation that most Chinese people have probably made, and we hear about how he's a racist.
Most Chinese people I know are quite proud of the work ethic put in by the Chinese community; here we have a Caucasian referring to that, and somehow, the media jump on it as an example of racism or offensive remarks.

The worst that could be said is that his remarks were stereotypical; hardly were they offensive.

I hope people take everything they hear from the media with a grain of salt... Otherwise they might incorrectly believe that one of the only good and responsible councilors in Toronto's government is a racist.

No such thing as good bye

2008-02-26T23:18:00.002-05:00

In this week, two of my brothers and good friends will be leaving Canada to pursue life in HK.
One brother I have known since first year university, and the other, I've known only for a few months. Still, in both cases, I feel a sense that we are more than mere acquaintances and friends - even if we haven't really spent too much time together, or knew each other for too long.
Despite all this, there's still a sense of bittersweetness in seeing good friends (seemingly) going to another world.

Not long after, another good brother and friend will also be making his journey to HK.

Now, sitting here in my room, a wave of immense hope and joy rushes over me, as I come to realize:

There's no such thing as "goodbye" if we belong to the Lord together.
There is no distance or timezone too far and too wide that we can't see each other again.
It may take us to the other side of this life, but in eternity, we will enjoy each other's company and friendship again.

Makes me feel warm and blessed to have known these awesome friends (amongst whom I surely count you).
And more than ever, it makes me want to bring the eternity's Good News to my friends and family who haven't taken hold of their place beside those of us who have already chosen.

I want to see you again.
All of you.
In this world, or the world that has yet to be.
You know who you are - thank you for being you.

Useful idiots

2008-02-19T20:39:00.002-05:00

Listening to AM640 on the way to work this morning, I came across an interesting conversation between John Oakley, and three special guests, Rev. Charles McVety (President of the Canada Christian College), Rev. Robert Oliphant (Pastor at Eglinton St. George's United Church) and Henrey Beissel (founder and president of Secular Ontario) discussing the recent choice by Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, to step down from power.

It was amusing to listen to two of the interlocutors seeking to justify their support of a despotic regime, tyranny and the suspension of liberty (I suspect it would be Beissel and Oliphant - call me prejudiced). The logical and ethical acrobatics these two went through to make a case for the tolerance of intolerance would have been worthy of a comedy, if not for the fact that numerous others drink the same koolaid that they do.

Some prime examples:
* Cuba has socialized medicine. Ergo, it is a more just and fair place than Canada and the U.S (which is singled out for particular scorn).
That's probably why thousands risk their lives, and many even lose them, in order to escape this "socialist paradise" by way of rafts and small boats. And quel horreur, they go to that bastion of tyranny and fascism, the United States.
* Cuba is a socialist economy, which means it's wealth is more fairly-distributed.
Perhaps that's why the average Cuban lives in conditions of squalor (outside of the tourist encampments/resorts, mind you) while the political elite are able to live lives of decadence and luxury. A corollary: if the country is poor, it means that everybody (except the political elite) is poor, regardless of how hard they work or labour. I guess you could call that fairness...
* It is the responsibility of rich countries to prop up these dictatorships, because that's the only way to help the Cuban people. As a corollary, tourism to 1939 Germany should have been unabated, as a way of helping the Jewish populace within. I love liberal theology and logic...

With brilliant points and logic like these, it really is a wonder that the Western world hasn't yet become a smattering of gulags, thought camps and ghettos. When ideological sacred cows like "socialized medicine" (and the attendant wait times, monopolies etc.) are valued over little things like freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of association, freedom not to be imprisoned or shot for one's thoughts and beliefs, etc., you can bet you're talking to a liberal.

Thank goodness Castro is out. One can only hope that as his influence fades, a new generation of Cubans will be able to regain their liberty, and from there, find prosperity and justice.
Until that happens, I for one will refuse to give a penny to the Cuban regime.

Despicable behaviour

2008-01-03T22:24:00.000-05:00

I don't understand it.

I don't understand why some people are so lacking in decency that they feel they have a right to make the whole world miserable.
I don't get why some people feel a need to drag others down to their level of misery; just because they lack the grace or gratefulness to find joy in life, they feel a constant need to bring the world around them to a screeching halt.

What is it about these people?
What makes you so special that you feel entitled/obligated to drag the people around down with you?
If you want to be miserable, go right ahead, but at least have the decency to keep it to yourself, instead of throwing your temper around and then expecting the world to treat you like a decent and respectable adult.
Such people are proverbial fools; they're the kind of people who curse at telemarketers, abuse cashiers, or make ludicrous demands of the people around them.
They are selfish, self-absorbed, self-centred, mean-spirited, contemptible and despicable little people, who walk around as if the world owes them something.
These are the people who yell at the people who serve them, who think that raising their voice and making demands is what will get them somewhere.
It might get them what they want in the short run, but the rest of the world will never ever respect or love such people.
These are the people who really believe that "the customer is always right." The truth is, "the customer always thinks they're right."
They walk around acting like the whole world is their enemy, and for their efforts, most of the world will gladly oblige them.

Truly, these are the types of people who can turn a party into a funeral just by their presence. They are moody, uncontrolled, unhinged, unreasonable.
Pity the people who must live or work with them.

And yet, they are so pitiful and pathetic because of their temperament will make them so lonely, so unloved, so misunderstood and avoided.

God help me love them.

What plagues us all

2007-10-30T23:45:00.001-04:00

56 Migrants die in bid to reach Canary Islands

A single heading in the World section of the newspaper caught my eye today. The article it was written for could not have held more than 300 words, yet it carried such weight that I could not help but feel a deep, hollowing sense of despair.

The article described how 56 migrants from Africa died en route to their promised land. They were trying to make it to Spain by sea, traveling (as many other thousands did) via overcrowded, rickety boats, often exposed to the elements and rarely with adequate supplies of food, water, or space.

A Spanish fishing boat found the Senegalese skipper ... barely alive in the half-sunken vessel south of the Cape Verde islands last Wednesday, 21 days after he set sail. Some of his passengers were rolled overboard by others as they slept, others committed suicide and some died in their sleep, he told the paper. The 29-year old was too weak to throw overboard the bloated corpses of the last seven passengers that were found with him.

The boat had set out from Mauritania with water, rice, and what the skipper believed to be 200 litres of fuel. However, four days into the journey, after the first can of fuel was finished, the crew was horrified to discover that they had been tricked and the other cans held only water.

The vessel was left to drift; when the food ran out, fighting broke out. "Some took advantage when others were sleeping to throw them over the side while the others did nothing to help them." Soon, the survivors were throwing dozens of bodies overboard. And at least 10 migrants committed suicide, throwing themselves into the sea, while others went to sleep one by one, never to awake again.

By the time the boat had been discovered, some 1,000 kilometres south of its origin, and 2,000 kilometres away from its intended destination, only the skipper was left alive.

Though the article kept to reporting only the facts, I could not help but feel a deep chill about humanity.

First there were those who sought to exploit the hopes of the weary and oppressed - their own countrymen even! by lying and cheating them with water instead of fuel.
Then there were the passengers and crew themselves. When faced with what appeared to be a hopeless situation and tremendous difficulty, this band of humans, all seeking to reach a common "promised land" turned on each other, choosing to fight and kill each other instead of cooperating to survive. Under these circumstances, basic human nature took over - to tragic consequences. Under these conditions, our sinful and evil inclinations took charge.
Perhaps the saddest thing: this could happen to anybody. Put into the right (or wrong) situation, any person has the capability to do great good, but also tremendous evil. Unfortunately, a cursory look at human history shows that the latter is usually chosen.

Perhaps this is what Hannah Arendt meant, when she coined the term "the Banality of Evil" - anyone, you, or I, can commit tremendous acts of evil and inhumanity.

What a wretched creature is man.

To the unspoken, unseen, unaddressed, unprotected: I'm sorry

2007-09-30T21:09:00.000-04:00

How many tears are shed behind closed doors that we don't know about?
How many deep pains, struggles, and burdens are carried alone?
How many smiling faces were only recently streaked with bitter tears?
How many words of reassurance or encouragement are offered by those who don't believe them?

I had a chance to just talk today, with someone I'm so close to, yet somehow, so rarely connected with. It opened my eyes: Sometimes we spend so much time helping those who appear to need it most that we overlook and neglect those who suffer silently. We pay so much attention to those who know to ask for it, all the while allowing those who either are afraid or unable to speak up, to continue to wither and suffer and live within deepening darkness and despair.

Sometimes the people who publicly appear to be in control, independent, and strong, are actually the ones crying out for help - crying out for a heart that listens and weeps with their own. How often do we listen for the voice that quietly whispers "save me," even as the loudest voices say "I'm okay?"

And how much pain have we caused without knowing it? What toll has our insensitivity and lack of wisdom exacted on our brothers, our sisters, our families and our friends?
How many times have I cut someone with my words or deeds? How many times have I crossed the line between good-natured fun, and viciously hurtful words and deeds?

If I have hurt any of you, I pray that you will forgive me - and even more, tell me what I have done against you that I may right my wrongs and become the friend, brother, son that you deserve - the friend, brother and son that my God has called me to be.

For my friend, brother or sister who hides the pain and suffering - please don't. Find someone you can trust, who you know loves you, and pour it out to them - our burdens weren't meant to be shouldered alone, and it gets so tiring and lonely to carry everything alone.
If I can help you, and you want to trust me to do so, please call me up and we'll talk. Don't keep all the pain for yourself - we'll hurt together and then we'll heal together.
And together we'll discover that Jesus has long offered to take all of our load for us - that all we need to do is let go of it all. There's nothing we can't defeat and escape when we walk together. If you'll let someone walk with you, you'll find that not all people are bad - let someone who loves you restore your hope, your faith and your joy.

You're only alone if you choose to be.
Choose love.

Thank you 24

2007-09-19T17:43:00.000-04:00

Last night I celebrated my 24th birthday with my dearest friends and brothers and sisters. As I washed off the caked (no pun intended) cream, eggs and flour off (and that stuff went into nearly every crack - no pun intended), I could not help but wear a stupid grin on my face.
After washing up, it was off to All Stars, where I had dinner with brothers and sisters from church, and we laughed about the ambush and basked in each other's company.
Earlier that day, I had lunch with some close highschool friends, one of whom I had not seen for some time. Again, it was an awesome time to just talk and hangout again.

After all this, on the quiet ride home from All Stars, Phil asked me how I felt - in a word, my reply was "Blessed."
On Monday I had dinner with my family - we went to a HK-style restaurant and just sat and ate, joked and talked until it was time to get the bill and go home. It wasn't anything extravagant, but the atmosphere and the time with my family was so much more priceless than any full course meal at a 5-star hotel.
On Tuesday I got to have fun and spend time with friends, family, and brothers and sisters - some old, some new.
Truly, there are some things money can't buy.

When I finally got to settle down and reflect, I realized that every person I have ever met in my 24 years on this planet has shaped me in some way. Every experience, every conversation, every gesture, has played a part in creating the me of today.

I thank God for each and every one of you.
And I thank you for your friendship, for your love and your care.
Some of you, I will be fortunate enough to thank in person and outright.
Some of you, my gratitude maybe hidden or unrevealed.
I can only hope that I can be as good a friend to each of you, as each of you has been to me.

Thank you for being there when I needed someone to talk to.
Thank you for being there when I needed a drive someplace.
Thank you for being there when I needed to borrow a few bucks for lunch.
Thank you for laughing at my (numerous) stupid jokes.

But most of all, thank you for being my friend.

Grace in despair

2007-09-04T18:25:00.001-04:00

The past week has been one filled with blessings.
I had the chance to go to two retreats in one week - the first, with Kerith and the second, with the career/working members of the church.

On the surface, both retreats were fantastic because I was able to meet new friends, get to know old friends better, and do many fun and memorable things.
What could be better than playing soccer with one's brothers - finally putting my big head to good use by converting a beautiful cross from Phil into a diving header goal (thanks Phil)?
Or having a water balloon fight to cool down on a hot day?
Even better, how about spending hours just laying in the cool night to gaze the stars with a group of brothers and sisters that I'm so blessed to come to know?

These experiences were incredibly beautiful - but they were only a bonus attraction.
The most rewarding and joyful aspect of these retreats was what was revealed into my heart by God - the words that the Father shares with those who seek after Him; words to encourage, to rebuke, to affirm.

More often than not, it was the silence which provided the richest sounds and words. And much of the most awakening experiences were away from my brothers and sisters: such as the solitary worship at the Kerith retreat, and the time of solitude at the career retreat.
To sit in the sun, seeing no one and hearing nothing but the sound of the breeze through the leaves. To sit aside and sing to the Lord in my loudest voice, without worrying about what the person next to me thinks. To read His word at my own bidding and pace.

But perhaps the most frightening yet liberating moment of revelation came on the second day of the Kerith retreat. As Uncle Joe spoke during his sermon, he asked a question that almost made me cry. He asked "why do we always wander away from God, having to rely on yearly retreats to bring us back into a commitment to Him? Why can't we make a promise to belong to Him, once and for all?"
At that moment, a deep wave of despair washed over me, as I realized the truth, the horrible and ugly truth about myself. For it is not as if I had never made the promises - no, the problem was that I had made the promise time and time again, only to fall and break my oath just as many times.
I realized that I was now afraid to make that promise - because I knew all too well that it would only be a matter of time before I broke yet another oath to my God. This despair was more than I wanted to bear - I was moved close to tears by my weakness.
But almost as fast as I was pulled into the depths of sadness, I was pulled up to the surface by the revelation that I had to let go: it could not be by my mortal and finite strength that I broke free of my prison - it could only be through God's strength and grace.

At that moment and on the drive back, I chose to let God do the worrying and heavy lifting - I will simply follow His lead.
The most amazing thing is, this is precisely the thing that I thought was my deepest spiritual need, going into the retreat.

God is truly faithful to those who call on His name. And I shall not want, when my future is in His hands.

A simple day

2007-08-12T20:11:00.000-04:00

Today was one of the happiest days I can remember.
It wasn't a particularly special day - I did not win the lottery, nor did I get a promotion.
In fact, I got rain-soaked running to and from my car.
To top it off, last night was terrible in terms of sleep.

Despite all this, for some reason I felt a deep joy today - a simple Sunday where I went to church to learn and grow, and spent time to share a meal with brothers and sisters. Joking around, serving each other and just enjoying each other's company.
It was a simple day where I could simply marvel at the joy of being in a community of believers, all sharing a single, common love for Christ.

It was a simple day where I could get home, mess around under the hood of my car, and read up on my work and training materials.

It was a simple day, where I could play an hour and a half of tennis with my Dad - something I had not been able to do for over a year because of his heart condition. The joy of running around the tennis court, dodging the still-present puddles, and hitting balls - sometimes into the net, sometimes out, and other times, beautiful shots that were born of equal parts of luck and skill.
With the August sun brightly shining against us, we played and joked with each other, congratulating each other when good shots were made, and teasing each other for not-so-good shots. All this, under a limitless blue sky.
It was simply a stunning day.

And then to come home - and share a word or two with Mom. It was not anything special - just a little catching up and some simple conversation. We did not talk about anything of philosophical importance, nor did we discuss how to save the world. We just talked, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

It was a simple day.
I wish that it would never end - or that many more simple days would follow.

Hate Machine

2007-05-30T22:27:00.000-04:00

Few things annoy as much and as efficiently as the efficiently inefficient automated receptionists that companies seem to think pass for satisfactory customer service.

Today, I had the pleasure of dealing with Microsoft's software activation monstrosity.
In order to activate my copy of Windows, I had to call in, sit and listen to asinine instructions from an automated receptionist, which some genius decided to style after an actual person, despite the fact that, for all the effort, you're still talking to an inanimate, very dead machine.

A very dead machine with an amazingly annoying tendency to try (unconvincingly) to convince you that you're actually talking to a living, breathing soul.
And one which has to slow everything down to a maddening crawl.
I think I might have uttered a few curse words under my breath while I attempted to negotiate with the glorified answering machine. I wonder if the machine can pick up on that?

Heartbreaking

2007-05-05T12:13:00.000-04:00

I just got off the phone with my old Judo coach.
Back when I was a kid, this man taught a little class of about 20 students at a Catholic school near school.
I don't remember him as being a particularly big man, but there was no doubt in my mind that he could throw anybody.

And yesterday, my Dad told me that my old Judo coach had been diagnosed with cancer, and that I better give him a call.
I remember thinking: "he probably doesn't even remember me" - but then I found out that he'd been asking how I was doing every time he visited my Dad at work.

So I called him this morning. And I found myself tongue-tied.
What do you say to someone who is living with cancer, or any other potentially-fatal disease?
What can you say?

All I could say was "Thank you" and "I'll pray for you."

I hope it is enough.

Kyoto: Answer to the world's problems

2007-03-18T17:08:00.000-04:00

According to the media (not the scientists, mind you), the entire world is in agreement when it comes to identifying the main threat to world peace and the prosperity of it's peoples.
And that threat has nothing to do with nuclear-ambitious tyrants, nor does it have to do with people seeking to blow up shrines, buses, and buildings.

The overriding threat to our world today is, cataclysmic, man-made global warming.

Even more miraculously, the people of the world are also in agreement at how we ought to face this threat: the Kyoto Accord.

My question is this: why stop there? The logic and wisdom behind the Kyoto Accord should not be limited simply to the realm of emissions control. It should be put to good use to deal with other problems which we face as a society.

Let's start with obesity:
My modest proposal is this - following the logic of Kyoto's Carbon Credits, we ought to have Fat Credits. If someone from New York wants to gorge at the buffet table, they should be free to purchase the corresponding Fat Credits from impoverished kids in Africa - they're not eating anything anyways. This way, the people of the world stay "fat-neutral" (just as David Suzuki and Al Gore stay "Carbon-neutral" by buying credits to offset the emissions of their cross-country tours).

Likewise, gambling, smoking or any other social ills that we face, can be eradicated by the judicious use of Kyoto-Logic.
You want to bet your home at the Crap Table? No problem! Purchase an offset from the Mormon guy down the street.
You want to put 3 packs a day through your system? Go ahead - just remember to buy an offset from a non-smoker.

Of course, there are some unintended consequences you'll have to face:
For example, when the impoverished credit sellers from Africa notice that they are able to turn a profit by selling these credits, they will be encouraged to hold off consumption of food - they'll have the money, but they'll prefer to stay malnourished in order to make room (no pun intended) for continued sales of "fat-credits." As a result, in order to preserve the "income" they earn, they will choose to consume less food than they should (and could).

By the same token, under the Kyoto Accord, net emitters (most industrialized countries) would be able to purchase credits from countries with little industry to speak of, or countries on downturn. This in turn, will encourage these have-not countries to stave off economic growth in order to continue reaping the profits from carbon credit trades.
Of course, this will do nothing to enrich the people of these countries - the only benefactors will be those who trade emission credits, and the elites.
And so, by good intentions, the poor will be denied prosperity and development.
They will be forced to "choose" the life of poverty, in order to prop up the emission credit trade.
Meanwhile, the rich countries will continue as they did before, with the added step of having to go through the motions of conservation and reduction, by trading these credits.

And that is how we will save the world.
Bless the creators of Kyoto for their wisdom!

Gas is TOO CHEAP!

2007-03-09T13:14:00.000-05:00

Two things have dominated Canadian news as of late.
The results of the Imperial Oil fire leading to alleged price-gouging by those Evil Oil Companies, and ATM fees resulting from alleged price-gouging by those Evil Banks.

My thoughts can be summarized as follows: 1) Gas prices are too damn low, and 2) Banks should be allowed to charge whatever fees they want.

It was sorely disappointing to see the supposedly-conservative Finance Minister Jim Flaherty jump into bed with infamously economics-ignorant NDP leader Jack Layton in his assault on the right of banks to charge fees for their services.
Just as disappointing, was the irrational and blindly emotional responses of many Canadians to the "high" prices of gasoline in the past few months, leading to a chorus of "collusion" unsupported by facts (if anything, evidence points to prices being held TOO LOW).

As one who has gone through (that is, "paid for") an university Economics degree, here are my thoughts:
Gas stations and oil companies ARE COLLUDING. However, contrary to hysterical cries and allegations, they are colluding to press gasoline prices DOWN. In other words, gas prices are too low right now.
One of the most basic things you learn in Eco101 is basic Supply and Demand. In a competitive market, prices should match exactly the point where supplies are perfectly in tune with demand - that is, supplies are perfectly cleared and consumed. However, the fact that we are seeing many gas stations run out of supplies proves that in those cases, their prices are too low, leading to shortages (i.e. more demand than there is supply).
If gas stations priced their products at the market clearing price, we should be seeing prices exceeding $1.10 in the GTA. Yes, this would be more expensive, but at least there would be gasoline available to those who need it (and are willing to pay for it). As it is, keeping prices artificially low means that there are places where you cannot buy gas, regardless of how much you are willing to pay. This means that those who need the gas most (i.e. truck drivers on deliveries) are unable to buy. Consequently, our economy is in even worse shape than if oil companies and gas stations priced their fuel to reflect the increased costs of A) the CN Rail strike (which prevents transport via rail) and B) the supply shock caused by the Imperial fire and the run on supplies from competitors.

The next thing that our politicians have been whining about lately, are the fees charged by banks for use of ATMs. Layton (as usual) brings in the Damned Yankees by referring to the lack of charges paid at TD machines by Americans who use their machines.
Of course, being either dishonest or ignorant, Layton neglects to mention that TD has a US partner in TD-Banknorth, which means that those Americans who don't pay fees are actually their own customers.
A few newspaper articles have dared to suggest that Canadians are actually the best-served when it comes to ATMs - we pay the least, and have the most ATMs per capita. However, for a population accustomed to holding their hands out and being spoon-fed, this is not enough.
We want our ATM service, we want it here, we want it now, and we want it free.
Of course, if Canadians would actually spend some time reading and researching, they'd have long known that ATM service is free when you go to any branches of your own banks (i.e. CIBC, TD, BMO) - you only pay when you take money from ATMs of other banks or white-label ATMs. So it isn't as if these fees are hidden - its just a premium you pay for the convenience.
Furthermore, these fees apply to each transaction - you pay the same fee for withdrawing $20 and you do for $200. This suggests that some of us need to get it together when it comes to budgeting - you should not be going to ATMs for just $20 or $40 at a time.

And as with any privately-owned businesses, banks have the right to charge whatever they want. Sure, it's "your own money" that you're trying to access. But what about the insurance, safety, convenience, and interest given by the banks? Those things don't come for free. If you don't like the fees you pay at your bank, do some research: there are no-fee banking services out there. And if you STILL don't like your choices after that, there's nothing to stop you from sticking your money in your sock, or burying it in the backyard.

It's just too bad that some of our politicians are more concerned with scoring political points, than they are with educating Canadians to make smarter choices and realizing that everything comes at a price. And that includes our supposedly-conservative Conservative government.

(In the interests of full disclosure, it should be noted I work at a bank - so I am a slave to the Evil Bank lobby - though I do work as a Teller, so it would be in my interests to see ATMs banished. To my knowledge, I don't have any interests in Big Evil Oil companies though).

Where are the heroes?

2007-01-31T22:25:00.000-05:00

It is so easy to get jaded these days.
It seems that this world becomes more and more primal, and people more and more selfish.
We have skyscrapers, cars, the internet, and instant communication around the globe, so why does it feel like humanity is getting less and less humane everyday?

Things we used to take for granted in times past, like courtesy and class, seem to be things of a bygone era, and a world we left behind for the sake of "progress."

A look at today's paragon of masculinity only seems to confirm the decay and devolution of the human race. Whereas the heroes of the black-and-white era were willing and able to take a principled stand, willing to fight for King and country, and willing to rescue (and even die for!) the damsel in distress, the modern "male" seems hard-pressed to muster the chivalry to hold the door for a lady.

What happened to the rough men of the past, who were tough as nails when they had to be, yet tender and loving for much the rest of the time?
What happened to chivalry? What happened to the knights of old who would risk it all to save the princess or the village?

Everytime I flip on the TV, I'm reminded of how old-fashioned some of my ideas are. It seems the modern man has to have a perpetual erection, a drive to win and acquire (no matter the cost), and an often-androgynous type of femininity that is so-oft mistaken for sensitivity and "being in touch" with one's emotions.

I need a hero to look up to: a man who strives to live a moral life, and a man who is not afraid to fight and die for the people he loves, or a righteous cause. A man who lives to honour.

Was the Man who came 2,000 years ago the last example?

Where are the heroes now?

Simplicity

2007-01-20T22:31:00.000-05:00

"All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honour, duty, mercy, hope." Winston Churchill

It is a familiar refrain: "The world just isn't that simple," "there are no absolutes," "you can't see the world as black and white - that's just too simplistic."

It is especially popular in our culture, society, and world today to deny that there exists such a thing as absolute anything, be it morals, values, or even historical fact.
Witness the calls not to condemn or judge in the realm of politics and world issues. A man or a country can be responsible for the calculated murder of hundreds of thousands, yet some population of "wisemen" will speak out against those of us who would label their ghastly acts as "crimes" or "evil."

We are told this is too naive a position: that it is foolishly judgmental, and ignores the context or "root causes" of whatever ill or evil we are witnessing.
I certainly hope it helps these people sleep better at night.

The fact is, though this refusal to acknowledge a simple code or moral standard seems rooted in greater wisdom, knowledge and intelligence (and for some people, it may genuinely be so), for the vast majority of us, I would wager that the real motive for our opting out of simplistic judgment is cowardice. It is so much easier to lie to ourselves and say that our ignoble refusal to take a strong (and quite possibly unpopular) stance is rooted in some high and noble intellectual tradition, than to simply acknowledge that it is fear or selfishness that holds us back.
Thus, we label those who call it as they see it as "unsophisticated," while we pat ourselves on the back for taking our "nuanced" approach to cowing out.
This is why people continue to die in the Darfur region (450,000 dead now, and counting) with little more than a few grunts of acknowledgment.

But more than an issue of will when it comes to politics and international affairs, this type of self-inflicted paralyzation is also remarkably prevalent in all that we do in our day-to-day lives.
We think of so many excuses not to do the right thing, by lying to ourselves and saying that the right thing is not the "right" thing because it is so simpleminded.
Thus, for fear of causing conflict, we opt out of saying what needs to be said or doing what needs to be done. We refuse to speak out against evil in our society, particularly when it is unpopular to do so (one example that comes to mind: abortion-on-demand).

The Apostle Paul wrote about this type of moral obstinance in 2 Timothy:

2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.
6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7 always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. 8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth—men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. (2 Timothy 3:2-8)
3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

These forms of self-congratulatory self-deception are indicative of our own refusal to obey and submit to natural law (i.e. the standards of God), and deep in our hearts, we know we are guilty to do so. But because of our pride and stubbornness, we create illusions of wisdom for ourselves, and deceive ourselves (and others) to the point where our moral disobedience becomes almost noble.
Those few who dare to stand against this flow are then ridiculed for their naivete and foolishness, again something which was observed by the good Apostle:

12 In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. (2 Timothy 3:12-13)

The fact is this: The right thing to do is often very simple.
Make no mistake: The right thing is also often the hardest option to take. All too often we equate "simple" with "easy", but there is a huge distinction between the two.
It is very simple to see that injustice must be rooted out and fought wherever it is found.
Actually doing that is an entirely different thing.
This extends to the situations and decisions we face in our own lives:
It is often very simple to see what needs to be done - but very difficult to bring ourselves to do it. All too often, we know the cost of doing the right thing - and often it is a steep price to pay. As a result, we come up with extravagant excuses not to do what we know to be right. We theorize and analyze, and complicate matters by attaching all sorts of conditions and hypotheticals, until what had been a simple (if difficult) choice morphs into a murky quagmire of untruths and "what ifs", all destined (and subconsciously, intended) to suck the will out of us, and lead us down the road of least resistance (which, incidentally, usually takes us away from what is right).

How much longer will we let this tendency and these lies rob us of our full potential?
How much longer will we let this rob the oppressed of justice?
Does anybody care anymore?

Urbana 2006

2007-01-13T17:05:00.000-05:00

For 5 days in late December, 22,000 young and old Christians, many students (college, university and highschool), descended upon the city of St. Louis, located in Missouri (the mid-west of the U.S). Each brought with them different flavours and shades - of worship, of life, of love - but each and every one of them also brought with them different flavours and shades of one thing - a love and faith in Jesus Christ.

And for 5 days in late December, all 22,000 of them sought for direction in their lives - namely how they could live their lives in a way that would fulfill the purpose they were created for.
And so, 22,000 of us walked the streets to attend seminars ranging from how to relate with your family, to how to evangelize. And 22,000 of us sang with one voice, in a multitude of different languages, to the One God in whom we have placed our faith and trust.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28

This is the beauty of the Christ family - no matter who you are, what colour your skin, what your gender, you are loved and welcomed here. For 5 days, we worshipped with others - sometimes in dance, sometimes in song. Always in faith, love, hope, and glory to our God.
We heard testimony from men and women who've journeyed to the slums and the poor parts of the world, seeking to bring hope and life-anew from Christ.
And we've heard powerful testimony from those who've had rough pasts - some who were abused, some who carried deadly diseases in their bodies, etc.
Through this all, only one thing could unify us - the Love; that Greatest Love of all.

For how else but in Christ, could conservative Chinese folks sing along and dance to fiery Latino beats, or the soul-stirring Gospel and worship styles of the African and Black churches?
How else could we have heard so many speakers from diverse backgrounds, all affirming but one single truth?

This was a small appetizer - nothing but a hint - of what Heaven would be like. To turn back, and feel the sounds, the voices, the music, wash over you like gentle ocean waves - to look around you and find tens of thousands singing in one voice, but dozens of different languages.
To breathe in the electricity, the energy, and the joy.

And most of all, to discover that, though all of us are together in Christ, each of us has one role to play in our lives. It seems that I may have discovered exactly what I was placed here to do.

And that is one of the most exciting things that could ever have happened to me. For true joy comes in accomplishing and doing exactly what you were made to do - fulfilling one's raison d'etre in turn brings us our joie de vivre.

Ca c'est bon, non?

Now the hard part is to transplant this beautiful vision, full of hope and potential, into my life - to bear fruit and be a blessing unto others. To walk in faith, even when the dark clouds rumble and beckon. To fight on, even when failures and obstacles mock and call.
To burn on in this fiery passion, even when the harsh winds of "normal" life threaten to blow out the flame.

It's going to be an interesting ride.

The death of an evil man

2007-01-03T21:21:00.000-05:00

The coverage of the recent execution of Saddam Hussein rises to a level of depravity which even the most ardent opponents of Saddam Hussein, in the case of Iraq, the Shi'ite Muslims he persecuted, have come to find deplorable and distasteful.

As much as I don't like Saddam and believe his execution was merited by justice, I find it immensely distasteful that we have not progressed beyond the barbaric thrills of spectacle (i.e. visiting the Colliseum, rubbernecking at car crashes, etc.) of a human death.
It reflects poorly on mankind that we find such a macabre joy in witnessing the forced extinguishing of a human life (regardless of what you think of the actual man). That the tragedy of death and miracle of life have come to be reduced to mere entertainment is a tremendously lamentable stage of our devolution.

Moreover, the mocking and jeering that Hussein received from his executors served only to show how boorish the supposed-victors and supposedly-just were, while serving to portray the strongman, who spent years hiding behind his army and secret police, as an almost stately man.
One could be forgiven for feeling that Hussein somehow rose above his executors (largely Shi'ite officials), if one managed to conveniently ignore all the deaths and suffering this tyrant caused.
In the end, the execution managed to do what few would have believed when Hussein was dragged out of his spiderhole, bedraggled, unshaven, dirty and pathetic.

It managed to make him look exactly like the martyr figure that he (and others) thought he was.

The War in Iraq - How the West was lost

2006-12-06T21:04:00.000-05:00

As of this moment, I'd have to say it looks like we've ("we" being the West - not just the U.S.) lost the war in Iraq.

Why?

Objectively, the war WAS a success - a resounding success, given that the country was taken and its regime toppled inside the span of a few months, Saddam Hussein captured and tried (a privilege he did not grant many of his manifold victims).
To date, casualties have been held low - that is, if you consider history and the casualties of all other armed campaigns ever held on such a scale (under 3,000 for a 3 year campaign involving the pacification and occupation of an entire country).
The enemy is incapable of mounting any full-scale attacks so they are reduced to resorting to these cheap terror tactics (tactics which tend to kill more Iraqis than Americans).

However, there is more to war than the objective and tangible - somewhere along the way, war picked up an alternate dimension - one that doesn't care about victories and contextualized statistics.
This one deals in cynicism, inability to accept even minor setbacks or opposition, and sensationalism; particularly towards failures and perceived corruption or malevolence in the political and military leadership.

In this sense, it is undeniable that we are losing.
The election of the Democrats (even if it was the more conservative members of the Democrats who were elected) signalled to many - not just the West - that Americans lacked the will to carry on and finish the job (even if it is, as some suggest, the job of cleaning up their mess).
The Europeans weren't even a factor - aside from a few gasps and convulsions from the Brits, the rest of Europe (particularly Old Europe - the Western Europeans) had signalled their revulsion at the thought of fighting (even for survival) way at the beginning.

This is a war waged in emotions - reason and rational thinking left long ago. Today, we have idealist pessimists drubbing the Bush administration for not being realistic enough (idealism was the clear reason for the invasion of Iraq and the harsher tone taken by Bush 43 against the various tyrants and strongment of the world). Of course, this contradicts with the Macchiavellian schemes that were cited originally by the Left as the reasons for war (Oil! Halliburton! etc.).
Today, the party most successful in manipulating emotions, is not the Republican party. It is not the neoconservatives either.

As such, it looks like the war in Iraq is lost - not for the power and competence of the U.S. and Coalition soldiers, as it is by a perceptible lack of will and vision. That, and a war-fighting strategy that is, at best, befuddled and contradictory - calling for kidgloves when hard, surgical hits are needed.

It isn't too late to save the situation - but given the way the winds are blowing, the outlook is anything but encouraging. Judging from the present trajectory, and the increasing weight held by old-guard realists who advocate negotiations with pariahs like Iran (compared to Iran, Syria is relatively benevolent state), it doesn't look good for Western civilization, which, it would appear, checked it's balls at the door and got a little too comfortable in it's revelry of it's liberal progress and economic riches.
The effects will be felt for decades to come - when irrational and genocidal Iran becomes sold as a rational and viable partner for peace, it is a sure sign that reason has left the building, replaced by naivete and wishful thinking.

A time will come when the price will be levied against the world for this short-sightedness.

What? Me worry?

2006-10-29T18:00:00.000-05:00

So al Qaeda has decided, in light of our continued commitment to Afghanistan, to identify Canada as a primary target for terrorist attacks.
Among the reasons cited, there was Canada's "fanatical adherence to Christianity" and it's support of the "Christian Crusade against al Qaeda."

Notwithstanding the humour of hearing al Qaeda and their band of whackjobs call us fanatical, these accusations are borderline absurd, given the secular state of Canadian society these days (hardly the manifestation of Christianity, we are).
To top it off, they accuse us of seeking to damage Muslims via financial and other means (likely code for "supporting the existence of Israel"), and completely ignoring the fact that Islamists do a far better job of damaging Muslims than we do (via acid-attacks on women, executions of the innocent, suicide bombings in the midst of other Muslims, launching riots at the drop of a dime, or revealing their ignorance by blaming women for being raped).

It is also amusing that al Qaeda has labelled Canadian troops as "second rate Crusaders", after the U.S. - and now they make noise about attacking us at home.
I say "bring it on" - I'd like to see how badly this bunch of sexually-frustrated losers would get their butts kicked against a proper army filled with pride, history, and skill such as ours.
Because if recent history is any guide, the second al Qaeda and their type of cowardly dogs decides to switch from attacking unarmed civilians, to attacking an actual army, they get beaten - probably almost as bad as they like to beat their wives.

Bring it on, you bunch of swine. Life and liberty will not be so easily extinguished by the ignorant hatred of a few pathetically-misled fools.

A Father's Tears

2006-09-30T19:06:00.000-04:00

Have you ever wondered at why there is such suffering in this world?

Day after day after day, we hear and see people living in the depths of despair - the depths of suffering and sadness.
Day after day, we hear of wars, hunger, sickness, death.

At home, we see sadness and pain all around - from the broken old man struggling up the steps, to the mother, bravely cradling her broken child, to the brother/sister/father/mother/uncle/auntie/friend we visit at the hospital, bravely clinging on to the faintest glimmer of hope, and vainly grasping at survival.

In the face of all this, how can we believe in God? Particularly, a God Who claims to be Love, and a God Who claims us as His beloved children?

So many times, I've wondered at this, as I walk through the busy streets and thoroughfares of life, and witnessed the physically- or mentally-handicapped, forging onward in life.
Many times I've wondered at this, as I watched the obese man or woman who wants so desperately to be free and healthy.
So many times, I've wished that they could be free of their pain - their sadness - their flaws.

At my softest moments, I have wondered at how willing I would be to assume all their burdens - to take in my body all of their sickness, their flaws, and their imperfections, and to give them this normal and healthy vessel that I have been so blessed with.

And at that very moment, just as I wondered at how long this darkness would envelop humankind, an answer came to me: The Answer to not only these visible pains and flaws, but also to those flaws and pains which are hidden deepest - the very malaise of the soul.

For 2000 years or so ago, there came a great Man - the greatest and wisest and boldest man that ever did, and ever would walk the face of the earth.
This Man came and with the promise of Eternity - a promise of love, peace, and perfection for all who would accept it from Him.
And some 2000 years ago, this Man took upon Himself - in His very mortal body - all of the pains, suffering, and sins of humanity.

This great Man took all of it - paying once and for all the price for our redemption.
Upon the Cross, He took upon Himself not just the physical flaws that are so visible, so pathetic, and so pitiable, but also the mental and emotional flaws that we try so hard to hide - the fear, the loneliness, the despair, the insecurities that we conceal with our painted smiles and our soothing speech. For these wounds are so much more pervasive, so much more elusive, so much more subtle, and so much more destructive and lasting than those which are laid bare before our eyes.
In His own body, He paid the toll of our rebellion - and for us, He endured all the pain that ever did and ever would exist.

In one fell swoop, He gave us freedom from death, from decay, from sickness and pain.
He promised and He delivered to each of us, a guarantee of a better day yet to come, if only we would Trust in Him to deliver. This was Love. If even I, a mere finite mortal could feel the pangs of sadness and compassion in light of the sufferings of my fellow human, how much deeper the pain of the very Creator of all of us - the Creator and Father Who sees inside our souls, past the fake happiness and hollow words, the Father Who sees our deepest fears, longings, sufferings, and sadness. How much more does He long to cradle us in His arms, to take our fear and pain away.

This is Love.

My Brother and My Sister - I shall pray that you and I will continue to abide in Him - to trust Him and know Him. And I shall pray that He will give us the strength to hold on and forge onward.

My friend who doesn't yet know Him - I shall pray that one day, you and I shall be able to share our joy and our blessing - that we may laugh together, and feel secure in the knowledge of our future; one of promise and boundless joy.

For to each of us an invitation has been extended, to take hold of the peace, the joy, the love, and the perfection that eludes us in this dreary world.

I pray that you and I will accept this gift together.

The Rape of Nanking

2006-09-19T22:27:00.000-04:00

9/18 marked the date that the Japanese Imperial Army began it's lengthy campaign of conquest and aggression against the Republic of China and its people, some 75 years ago.

During this campaign, the Japanese army inflicted deep wounds upon the Chinese people, not only raping and pillaging with reckless abandon, but also using Chinese civilians and prisoners as guinea pigs in sadistic and inhuman experiments, including exposure to various diseases, gases, the plague, as well as to see the effects of extreme heat, cold, and the severing of various body parts and organs on live humans.

Under various "research units" (such as the infamous Unit 731), Chinese women, children, and men were expended in "experiments" such as testing to see how much pain a human could take before death, via burning, gassing, chemical weapons, dismemberment, freezing, etc.
The inhumanity was such that the "scientists" referred to Chinese as "mokujin" - literally, "wooden men" - rather than acknowledging that these were humans they were brutally murdering.

Even worse was the massacre targeting Chinese civilians, known as the Rape of Nanking (or the Nanking Massacre - 南京大屠殺).
Following the battle of attrition fought in Shanghai, the Japanese were given over to brutality and sadism in how they treated the Chinese they captured or conquered - the Rape of Nanking was the widespread genocide of Chinese civilians, with a bodycount rising to 300,000 - exceeding the deaths from the two nuclear weapons dropped on Japan.
On top of this, tens of thousands of Chinese women - from children to elderly women - were raped (and often murdered) by the Japanese "soldiers" - who were hellbent on inflicting as much pain and humiliation as possible on their prisoners.

I had since a young age, known of this - of the injustice and brutality of the Japanese army. However, this past Sunday, a brother of mine showed me the book of Iris Chang, which detailed the Rape of Nanking (Chang, shortly after publishing this book, committed suicide), as well as an illustrated account of the massacre (photographs from foreign journalists, and Japanese sources).
This made very clear the visceral hatred that the Japanese soldiers had for the Chinese - as well as their evil and absolute inhumanity - going so far as to force fathers to rape their daughters, sons their mothers, etc., as well as summarily executing children and using civilians as targets for live bayonet practice.

The sickest thought of all that came to me while I was reading - if not but for the fact that I and those I love and care for, were born well after the war, it could have been us - us being bayoneted. Us being machinegunned, gassed, beheaded, dismembered, murdered, raped.

At the end of this, though it is rather unChristian of me to feel and think this way, I could not help but feel a deep hatred for the Japanese Army - and the culture of racism and militarism that fostered this evil. To the point where I regret that the Americans only dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan.

Mahatma Gandhi noted that "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."
Perhaps there will come a day when I will feel that this wrong can be forgiven.
For now, with respect to Gandhi, I must disagree - we should have dropped ten nukes on the bastards.

Update:

Not very long after writing this piece, I have come to understand that forgiveness must be given - even if is not asked for.
Though I still bristle when I think about the evils perpetrated by the Imperial Japanese, I cannot wish them ill any longer.
An untimely death, whether by sword, bayonet, or immolation, causes too much pain - not just to the victim, but to the One Who painstakingly created them.

It is amazing what a well-timed nightmare can do for one's clarity - particularly if that nightmare involves being burned alive.

The Dawson Shootings

2006-09-19T21:57:00.000-04:00

Animal Cruelty
American Government
Anyone Who Supports The American Government
Religion
God
Capatalists (sic)
F***ing Religious People Who Think They Know Everything.....And Then They Stick It In Your Face Cuz' They Think They Know Everything (They Don't Understand That They're Just A Bunch Of Little Sheep)
Catholics
Church Going A**holes
Bible Thumpping Know-It-Alls
All Priests
Republicans
Homophobes

This is just a bit of the list of things that Kimveer Gill, the perpetrator of the Dawson/Montreal shooting spree, posted on his website as his peeves.

Of course, you don't see this in the news - all you hear is that he didn't like Jocks and Preppy types.

As much as I'd like to pray for the soul of this individual (I refuse to call a man anyone who would go and shoot unarmed students and such), as someone who fits more than a few of the categories on his list, and as an otherwise decent humanbeing, I have to say that my only regret is that the cops didn't shoot him fast enough - if they'd shot him sooner, perhaps he'd have killed himself only, and left others unharmed.

I can only hope that his parents don't thrash themselves too much - at the end, their little boy was a 25-year old man, who made a conscious decision to kill people for no reason other than because of his envy - envy at their accomplishments, envy at their happiness.
Ultimately, it wasn't them, or videogames, or movies that caused this tragedy - only the tragedy of the human condition, when left to itself and it's hopeless conclusion.

September 11

2006-09-13T14:55:00.000-04:00

A few days ago, I listened to a Chinese radio program that polled callers on whether they thought the U.S. war on terror was a success.

To my dismay, every respondent claimed that it was not a success.
Barring the intellectual fallacy behind this position, can't we at least get some diversity in our thoughts?

Most respondents cited the war in Iraq as their reason for calling the war on terror a failure.
My response is simple:

Since Sept. 11, 2001, have there been any further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil?

The answer is, obviously, a resounding no.
Since 19 terrorists got tremendously lucky 5 years ago, North America has not been struck by anything resembling a major terrorist attack. There have been close calls, sure (not least of these being those in Canada), but by extraordinary luck and effort, these have been foiled each time.
The answer is not much different in Europe. Yes, there were the Madrid bombings in 2002, the Beslan massacre in 2004, and the London bombings last year, but take a look at the body counts.
From just shy of 3000 dead in the 9/11 attacks, we've seen a decline in fatalities to 52 or so in the London bombings.
Not only this, but our lives have not really been altered deeply - yes, there are more security measures, but that's to be expected. We continue to work, play, go to school, live, and love as we did before.

Would we be able to do so if the terrorists were succeeding?

I think not.

5 years after, however, we must remain diligent, and never forget how history was shaken by 19 evil men.
We must fight harder than ever to destroy these evil men, and destroy the conditions that lead to their existence, including failed states such as Afghanistan.

The Bible: Bulls***? Yeah, right.

2006-09-10T21:06:00.000-04:00

As I was surfing around the ‘net on this past lazy Labour Day, I came across an interesting episode of Penn and Teller’s Bullsh*t! which claimed to conclusive prove that the Bible is completely ungrounded in reality and history.

“Bullsh*t” as Penn so eloquently puts it.

Intrigued, I decided to watch it, somewhat uneasy at the prospect that the Holy Bible, the cornerstone of my Christian faith, and the source of my peace and tranquility, as well as my promise to a reputed eternal life, might well be proven to be completely untrue in the span of 30 minutes.

How disappointing.

[Watch the video here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8463073960287313294&q=penn+teller+bible&hl=en

** Note that the video is rife with language that could make a public schoolkid blush – so viewer discretion is definitely advised.]

The show started off promising enough – with copious amounts of foul language, of course. Penn recited some stats about the number of Americans with Bibles in their homes (4 out of 5).

Then came some lofty assertions that this whole book, which served to inspire and mold much of Western and Modern civilization was, in effect, a crock. All this is, of course, claimed to be the conclusion of the show’s “crack” team of researchers, so I’m already squirming in my chair, thinking “Oh dang… Is the thing that influences my life so much about to be proven to be fake, and I myself shown to be a dupe?” (It would later turn out that “crack” refers to whatever the “research team” was smoking when they made their findings).

Oooh… Sounds threatening if you’re a Christian who believes in the Bible right?

Read on, because this puppy’s bark is worse than it’s bite.

The dynamic duo then proceed to introduce their experts.

In this corner, wearing blue trunks, the heroic and clear-minded skeptic, who has a Ph.D, and is a self-avowed atheist who is also an editor at Skeptic magazine (his name escapes me, but it’s not important).

In that corner, wearing the stupid trunks, the Bible-thumper who thinks he’s smart because he has a Ph.D, calls himself a Doctor, and studies ancient history, archaeology, etc. at some university somewhere.

Did I mention that the skeptic is superior because, although he also has a Ph.D, he is humble enough not to call himself “Doctor?” Geez, Penn. Talk about grasping at straws.

Moving on to the “meat” of the show.

First on the chopping block, we go straight to the beginning in Genesis. What’s the problem? What earns the ire of Penn, Teller, and their mighty expert?

Well, apparently Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 tell a different story – Ch. 1 seems to say that God created Man, male and female, together on day 6, while Ch. 2 says that Adam came first, followed later by Eve.

Somehow, this constitutes some massive, groundbreaking proof that the Bible is a myth, but is it really? After all, what’s so strange about Chapter 1 being a summary of what the rest of the book (or in this case, the next few chapters) will discuss? What is so hard to believe about the author using chapter 1 to gloss over things that aren’t quite as important as the subsequent chapters?

But according to Penn and Teller, this is supposedly some huge faux-pas that disproves the Bible, and that the incongruity somehow suggests that there is more than one narrative at play (in other words, more than one writer).

Bear in mind that no Christian has ever denied that the Bible was penned by more than one person, but always under the inspiration of God.

Moving on, the Skeptic asserts that this incongruity is also a sign of another one of the Bible’s flaws – the process of Canonization – that is, the choosing of the books in the Bible. Somehow, as if often the case with people who seek to disprove Christianity and the Bible, this process is portrayed as the devious manipulations and machinations of some evil committee.

The reality is nowhere as sexy – all it was, was a bunch of church leaders who came to agreement on what the basic tenets and texts of the Christian faith were. A little knowledge on the structure of the early church would explain it all.

The early church, as described in the Book of Acts, in the first century or so, was really just a cluster of decentralized groups of believers who worshipped and prayed together. It was nothing as structured or hierarchic as the churches of today, not to speak of the Catholic Church. Not only this, but during that time, there were no “Christian” Scriptures – Christians were viewed as a sect of Judaism, and read from the Jewish texts, or spread the Gospels orally. Subsequently, in order to guard against cults and misrepresentation, as well as make the faith more accessible, these early church leaders (whose leaders were simply men and women with a calling to serve their brothers and sisters in different roles) came to agree on what constituted the orthodox Scriptures. That’s all. No conspiracy, no cool secret handshakes.

Next up, the “crazy” things listed in the Bible that couldn’t possibly have happened.

First up, Noah’s Ark.

The skeptic comes right out and claims that there’s no possible way this could have happened.

His reasoning? There’s no way that any man could have put pairs of all the animals of the world into a single boat, and then distribute them where we find them today.

This “reasoning” is flawed for several reasons:

One, the Ark itself has always been held to have been a gargantuan structure that took centuries to construct (the Bible claims that people used to live for centuries – not entirely impossible, given that Okinawans often lived past a century until McDonalds invaded). In fact, the dimensions for the Ark are given in Genesis 6:15-17, and these dimensions are certainly those of a sizeable ship.

Two, how can the good Ph.D be sure that the amount of species we have today is the same as back in Noah’s times? Given the path of evolutionary processes, it should logically hold that there’d be LESS species then, than now. Furthermore, the only animals that would need provision on the Ark would be land animals – swimmers would be just fine in the water, further reducing the amount of space needed.

Three, the idea that the world today is the same as the world of Noah’s time is really just a guess. After all, according to archaeologists and geologists, once upon a time, the entire landmass of the world was concentrated in one single continent, so that, hypothetically, all the animals could have just left the ark and still walked to Australia, South America, or what have you.

So much for logical thinking and hard research.

To top it off, Penn notes the “irony” of a “loving” God who would destroy all the living things in the world.

Of course, he neglects to mention that God’s displeasure stemmed from the choice of the men of the time to desire evil, nor does he mention that God waited until Noah had corralled all the animals in twos, and built the ark – tasks which would have taken decades. All this time, humankind could have stayed God’s anger, simply by turning away from evil. Alas, shoulda woulda coulda.

Next up, Penn tries to dish dirt on various miracles, from the parting of the Red Sea, to the plagues in Egypt.

Perhaps the only claim worth noting in this section, was the claim that Egyptian history does not record there being Hebrew slaves at all, which would throw the whole Mosaic story into doubt.

Currently, evidence of Jewish slaves in Egypt is admittedly missing. Some have theorized that the Egyptians would not record such humiliation as that experienced at the hands of the Hebrew slaves, while others have noted that the difficulties in dating the Exodus accounts contributes to the confusion.

Ultimately, each will have to make their decision, but according to some archaeologists, 8-spoked wheels that were used in the 18^th dynasty of Egypt have been found at the bottom of the Red Sea. (http://www.wyattmuseum.com/red-sea-crossing-05.htm)

At most, this argument proves inconclusive.

As for the Red Sea and other miracles, ultimately they are unprovable using scientific means, by virtue of their very definition.

For example, if it is as some claim, that Moses and the Hebrews actually crossed at the Reed Sea (or the Sea of Reeds) rather than the Red Sea, what would have been a spectacular miracle, becomes simply an incident of good timing coinciding with the tides. In other words, there’d be no need for God at all.

As is the case with much of the rest of the show, when dealing with miracles and scientifically-impossible occurrences, ultimately it rests on faith. After all, it is impossible by definition, to prove scientifically things which rest on the supernatural.

This question of the Egyptian account ends with them questioning (again) how a “loving” God could possibly send these plagues (especially the firstborn killing) on other people – of course, as with before, they conveniently ignore the long list of rebellious acts of Ramses and his people that led up to the final plague on the firstborns.

But hey, appealing to emotion is a stand up technique when you’re debating on logic and reason, right?

Next, the duo tackle the very historicity of Jesus Christ Himself. Bear in mind that Jesus’ existence is proven by the various eyewitness accounts from the time, not just within Jewish or Christian circles, but also in secular circles, by historians such as Tacitus, Josephus, etc. (Jews, Greeks, Romans, etc.)

Not only that, but the Gospels came at a time when numerous eyewitnesses were still alive, and thus able to step forward to challenge any incongruities found in the Gospels, compared with reality and history.

To these, Penn and Teller mockingly refer to how we can scientifically prove the existence of Elvis, by virtue of his body, eyewitness accounts, pictures, recordings, etc., while the same cannot be said of Jesus.

Sadly, according to Penn and Teller, we could not possibly prove the existence of Hannibal, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, etc. either, since much of what we know of these historic figures, we know from oral histories passed along, and sparse written records.

Comparatively, the existence of Jesus Christ is not in doubt. All that can be questioned, is His claim to divinity and Godhood.

On this issue, the expert and the duo stumble again. They heap doubt upon the accounts of Jesus’ miracles, including healings, but in the process, again fail to acknowledge the eyewitnesses who could have dispelled myths.

However, these miracles and the claim of Jesus to be the Son of God, ultimately rests on each individual, who must choose whether to believe, or not. Again, these are not things which could be proven scientifically – much as a hammer cannot be used to turn a screw.

In another amusing dialogue, the skeptic (who obviously knows how to flatter) talks about how Jesus’ “miracles” could have been done by illusionists/con-artists like Penn and Teller. This is so amusingly ridiculous.

Next, they talk about how the story of Jesus shares stunning parallels with various stories of other “gods” or great men (Mithras comes to mind), and how Christianity is really just an amalgamation and edited version of various other previous faiths, religions and beliefs.

The wise man Solomon remarked in the book of Ecclesiastes to the effect that, everything has been seen under the sun – there is nothing new. As such, it is not unreasonable that parallels are shared.

However, the claims and historicity of Christianity, as well as the role it served in the underpinnings of Western civilization are beyond reproach – simply saying “this Jesus fella reminds me of that Mithras fella” is not enough.

Finally, Penn and Teller close the show, by exhorting viewers to read their Bible – but not for morality or history, or spiritual healing.

Penn arrogantly proclaims that readers of the Bible would become atheists, which is (in his opinion) something the world needs more of. Apparently, atheists like Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Josef Stalin, etc. aren’t enough, eh? So much for the “dispassionate search for truth” – this has become and evangelizing effort for the religion of atheism.

Ultimately, Penn and Teller’s show does bring something to the viewer. Watching this, you will learn that when one sets one’s heart out to either disbelieve or believe in something, they will be able to find millions of reasons.

In this case, hiding behind a (very) thin veneer of intelligence, rationality, logic, and wisdom, Penn and Teller seek to justify their lifestyles and choices.

I suspect many others do this as well, as I myself was once guilty of this. At the end, one cannot help but feel a twinge of pity for the duo, who choose to seize on what appear to be improbabilities, and in doing so, lose sight of the greatest gift they could ever accept.

I can only hope that their viewers will be wiser, and more open-minded, as well as more willing to dig deeper, because on the subject of Christianity, the Bible, and its history, even I, as a mere layperson with a laptop and some basic knowledge of history, have proven to be more capable and knowledgeable.

And that, mes amis, is not bullsh*t.

August Night (Aug. 26, 2006)

2006-09-02T23:46:00.000-04:00

Crickets sound their joyful tune
In the cool night air.
I lift my gaze up to the August sky,
And marvel at the starry dark.

Diamonds glittering,
Suspended in a velvet sky.
Shooting stars blaze a path through heaven,
Piercing the dark sky with fire.

I stand in awe.
The trees rustle in the breeze.
The gentle night flows around me like a river.
The crickets continue their symphony.

Revenge of the angry weedwhacker

2006-08-22T22:23:00.000-04:00

What is it that makes people think that they can make their econobox-beater-crapbox Civic into a supercar by attaching a grotesque bodykit and a coffee-can exhaust pipe?

It's bad enough we have these kids (or grown men who act like kids) strafing recklessly through busy streets during the daylight. The past few nights, I've had to deal with some idiot on my street, who decided that the dead of night (11:30ish) is a good time for him to drive around the neighbourhood (full of gainfully-employed folks like myself trying to get some sleep), revving the hell out of his crappy wannabe sports car.

I have yet to see this offender of vehicular good taste, but if past experience is a guide, the offending vehicle will look just like it sounds - which is to say, hideous, obnoxious, grotesque, and crass. Good sportscars just don't sound like an angry weedwhacker...
While we're at it, it will in all probability be a late-90s Honda (sorry Honda drivers, but those are the breaks), with a garish bodykit, parkbench-spoiler, tasteless colour scheme (or no paint job at all - just a layer of primer), and probably enough stickers to entertain a Kindergarten class for hours.

What's even worse than the decibel-level of these "cars" is the lack of concern for public safety exhibited by the drivers by racing around residential areas late at night. Imagine an old guy, out walking his dog late at night - that's risking some serious tragedy right there.
Here's to hoping that before that doofus kills somebody, the cops will pull him over, or his car will get A) towed B) stolen C) crushed into a cube, or D) all of the above.
I personally would not mind pouring some good sugar down that monstrosity's gas-tank.
Come to think of it, that would be "sweet" revenge indeed.

AIDS - Perpetuating human suffering and indignity

2006-08-19T17:33:00.000-04:00

The past week saw the International AIDS conference come to Toronto.
It also raised controversial issues such as legalization of the sex trade (the polite term for "prostitution"), abstinence teaching, and condom use.

As usual, a plethora of self-righteous (read: Stephen Lewis) "celebrities" descended into the usual denunciations of those rigid ideologues and moralists, namely the Yankee President, George W. Bush, and the Catholic Church, both of whom advocate (on top of education on "safe sex") abstinence programs.

However, the science (as well as common sense) speak out against these self-proclaimed experts.
A recent National Post article found that young teens who'd been exposed to abstinence teachings were less likely to engage in promiscuity - and when they did, abstinence teachings did not make them any less likely to practice safe sex via condoms and other protective measures.
Not only that, but Uganda, which focused its AIDS/HIV prevention efforts on promoting abstinence, now sits as one of the lone success stories in the AIDS/HIV-ravaged African continent, where some countries have HIV infection rates approaching 50%.

Not only that, but contrary to public knowledge, scientific findings, and plain old common sense, we heard a WHO official, Dr. Anders Nordstrom, clearly claim that "we have one magic bullet that works" while waving around a condom.
This, despite the well-documented fact that condoms do break (with a failure rate as high as 10% being reported), and the fact that the only certain way to prevent contracting STDs is to, logically, avoid sexual contact and promiscuity in particular, altogether.

At the same time, these objective and enlightened ones criticized those who advocate abstinence first, and "safe sex" second, as being guilty of "ideological rigidity", "putting their heads in their sand" and being "reactionary." On top of this, Bill Gates' positive mention of abstinence (noting that it was saving many lives) drew a chorus of boos from the allegedly-objective and enlightened crowd. Bill salvaged the situation by meekly surrendering that abstinence "was not enough", which netted him applause and cheers.
Those who live in glass houses...

The whole issue of AIDS and how to deal, has become so politicized as to be virtually unsupportable unless if you meet certain requirements. For starters, if you oppose the legalization of the sex trade (an industry that feeds predators, dehumanizes and demeans women and men alike, and strips participants of dignity, as well as inviting debilitating health issues), or have reservations about the gay agenda (not to be confused with homosexuality), you are likely a persona non grata. Ditto if you support abstinence teachings, or are unwilling to castigate the Church (Catholic or otherwise), despite the Church's undertaking of a huge chunk of the efforts to provide for, and care for AIDS/HIV sufferers.
This issue is so politicized, that at a recent AIDS gala dinner I attended, one MC took liberties to lash out at the sitting Canadian PM for not attending the conference (despite the fact that the previous Liberal PMs did the same).

So this whole issue boils down to a nice international business - the AIDS industry combining with the Free Love/Promiscuity Rights industry, to produce suffering and indignity.
How then, can one be expected to give, while at the same time being asked to ditch their integrity, beliefs, etc.?
At it's very core, AIDS is not just a scientific problem - it is also one regarding choice, responsibility, and morality.
Given a recent interview given by a member of the gay community, who acknowledged that many gays simply didn't care or were willing to gamble with AIDS, it is hard to heed the calls for contribution with much seriousness, even as one may be overwhelmed with compassion.

At the end of the day, it boils down to how much we are willing to sacrifice to win against AIDS and other ailments - how much responsibility we're willing to take.

So far, the signs aren't very promising.

Aftermath

2006-08-19T17:26:00.000-04:00

A cursory look at the aftermath of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict and its "resolution" yields a rather dreary outlook for the future of the Middle East.

By failing to defeat Hezbollah decisively, as numerous other pundits have concluded, Israel has given the impression that it is weak and militarily-incompetent. This impression is fatal, given the nature of Israel's neighbours and enemies. The threat of overwhelming retaliation was what, arguably, kept Israel's fate and existence relatively secure for the past 30 or so years.
From 1948, 1967 to 1973 and 1981, Israel's military triumphs over her aggressors had become the stuff of legend - a legend that prevented ambitious and malicious Arab leaders from daring to openly confront the little Jewish state.

No more. With the shoddy outcome, where Hezbollah's very continued existence would prove to be the vexatious sign of victory for Islamists everywhere, Israel no longer has the luxury of this impression to deter her foes.

The only outcome will be more war, as Arab and Islamist leaders become lulled into thinking that they can defeat the Jewish state and its people, thereby emboldening wackjobs like Iran's Ahmedinajad and Hezbollah's Nasrallah, as well as devious manipulators like Syria's Assad.

The fact that the laughable UN force currently has volunteers mostly from Islamic states who don't recognize Israel's right to defend itself (such as Malaysia and Indonesia) only serves to heighten the expectation of bloodshed and tragedy. It was bad enough when the UNIFIL, both incompetent and partial to Hezbollah, were in charge - now Israel will have to watch out for "peacekeepers" who'd likely like nothing more than to help push the Jews into the sea.

It's about to get very Biblical - and very hot - in the Middle East.

Clarity in a firestorm

2006-07-19T13:24:00.000-04:00

In this long-winded post, I will express my view on the situation, including the origins of the current conflict, the "disproportionate" nature of the Israeli retaliation, the issue of civilian casualties ("collateral damage") and the Canadian course of action thus far.

For those who have been paying attention to the news for the past few weeks, the Middle East is again becoming embroiled in what could spread into a region-wide war.
As is often the case, Israel is the focus of attention, both good and bad.

The current conflagration started several weeks ago, when a young Israeli soldier was kidnapped, and two killed by Hamas terrorists who tunneled under an IDF (Israel Defense Force) outpost.
This provocation led to an Israeli response to rescue their kidnapped son, which included a massive incursion into the so-called Palestinian Territories, in a desperate attempt to avoid a repeat of the past, when an Israeli airman was kidnapped, and reportedly taken to Iran (his fate has never been determined - for all intents and purposes, this Israeli citizen has ceased to exist).

Bear in mind that many of these and other attacks on Israel, originated from areas of the Gaza and West Bank which Israel had VOLUNTARILY withdrawn from, and gave to the Palestinians.
This unilateral withdrawal, far from winning peace as many naive people hoped, resulted in the establishment of new locations from which the various militant groups in the region could launch their attacks on Israeli cities and civilians, including (but not limited to) the launching of homemade Qassam rockets, sniper attacks, etc.

Fast forward a few days:

Hezbollah, the Shiite militia, armed and backed by the nouveau Axis of Evil, Iran and Syria, launches an attack into Israeli territory, essentially invading. The aftermath: 8 dead and 2 kidnapped Israeli soldiers, when their patrol is ambushed.

Where did this attack come from? From Southern Lebanon, a region which Israel had unilaterally and voluntarily withdrawn from in 2000, after a decades-long occupation (again, the result of attacks and provocation). This region had been relatively safe, until the collapse of the Southern Lebanon Army, comprised largely of Lebanese Christians (of which there had been many, prior to the arrival of radical Islamists). In the time since then, the region has become a safe haven for Hezbollah and other militant/terrorist groups, as well as a springboard for attacks into Israel. The worst part of all of this? The Lebanese government in Beirut is complicit in making the southern part of their country into a terrorist territory, by refusing to send in their troops to assert their own sovereignty. Faced with such complacency, Israel is forced to do the job of the Lebanese army, and enforce Lebanese sovereignty by attacking Hezbollah, which uses Southern Lebanon to launch rockets (which can strike Tel Aviv, Israel's most populated city) into Israeli civilian centers.

Once again, areas which Israel chose to withdraw from - which it had taken in battle, are used by these terrorist organizations to attack Israeli civilians (including Israeli-Arabs) via rockets, sniper attacks, bombings, etc. This sad pattern has become par for course, each time with Israel paying the price for listening to the naive and foolish ideas of many in the West (usually left-wing ideologues and situational pacifists). The result of Israeli goodwill has, time and again, been the bitter fruit of war and violence.

In the words of Israeli PM Ehud Olmert, "enough."

Israel must defend herself from these attacks, and from those who would settle for nothing less than the absolute destruction of the Jewish state, which happens to be the only beacon of democracy and civil law in a region marred by corruption, destruction, violence and repression.
If this means being proactive in rooting out terrorist elements, and destroying them completely, so be it. This is what they have brought down upon their heads - now Hezbollah, Hamas, and those who support them or harbour them (including the "innocent" "civilians" who claim Hezbollah to be their protectors) must reap what they have sown.

Speaking of which, there have been numerous claims that the Israeli response has been "disproportionate" to the transgression. This is not necessarily false, but I would argue that a disproportionate response, in this situation, is also the only rational response.
Human psychology has several motivators - some of them good, like love. However, few things motivate us like fear. The Israelis know this, hence their use of maximum force to retaliate.
Given Israel's position, surrounded by potential, current, or erstwhile enemies from all sides, as well as the long history it has of having to defend it's survival, they (Israel) know a thing or two about what is effective in securing peace. Through numerous trials and battles, one lesson that they have learned is this: To minimize future violence, it is necessary to raise the costs to the enemy to levels which are sky-high. That is, to make the costs of terror attacks or invasions against Israel so prohibitively high, that any rational actor will think twice before daring to attack Israel. It is no coincidence that since the early 1980s, no state has openly dared to attack Israel (this follows the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War, the 1973 Yom Kippur War, and the actions of the early 1980s, including the occupation of Southern Lebanon, and the destruction of Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor - all Israeli victories against stunning odds).
The gameplan must be to raise costs so that any perceived benefit of attacking Israel becomes miniscule, and this requires that even slight transgressions be repaid with dire consequences and punishment.
Those who decry the Israeli response are either ignorant and naive, or they know the game, and seek to deprive Israel of the only strategy that works to ensure her survival.

On the issue of civilian casualties, I will echo the sentiment that has been expressed numerous times: all civilian deaths are tragic, and to be avoided.
This means the deaths of the 218 or so Lebanese civilians who have died thus far, as well as the 8 Canadians, and 18 or so Israeli civilians who have perished.
Unfortunately, bullets and bombs do not discriminate between friend or foe, civilian or fighter. And unfortunately, in all wars, there will be accidents and mistakes which result in civilian deaths.
This conflict has been no exception.
However, before one denounces the Israeli bombardments and destruction of Lebanese infrastructure, one must acknowledge that there is a fundamental difference between the Israelis and those whom they are targeting.
Like most Western armies, the Israeli forces take the utmost precautions to ensure that civilian deaths are minimized when they strike military targets. Also, as per the Geneva Convention, Israeli troops wear distinct uniforms which identify them as soldiers, and thus fair targets on the battlefield.
It is also clear that the Israeli forces are focused on destroying the war-making capacities of Hezbollah, Hamas, etc., while avoiding the targetting of civilian areas as much as possible.

In contrast, Hamas and Hezbollah do not wear uniforms. They regularly use ambulances to transport troops and weapons, as well as hide and shelter in civilian populations and residences, all of which are against the Geneva Convention (though one could argue that they are not eligible to the rules of the Geneva Convention - which also means they are not protected by it, with obvious consequences not only in Israel, but also in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay). Not only this, but they make it part of their strategy to mix with the civilian population, transporting weapons through residential areas, and using civilians as human shields, etc.
Furthermore, they have no qualms with deliberately targeting civilians in Israel (or elsewhere).

Faced with a foe that hides their weapons in mosques or hospitals, Israel has no choices - it MUST attack these targets, or else the enemy will simply see it as a vindication of their cowardly techniques, and start stashing weapons and troops in schools, hospitals, etc. to prevent their destruction. This will only beget further endangerment of civilians, both Israeli and Arab.
This also puts the lie to the notion of Hezbollah (or Hamas) as protectors of the people. Until the civilians see that their aiding and abetting of these terrorist groups will only cause them harm and generate risks, these tragedies will not be minimized.
If civilians are serious about staying out of the crossfire, they must make the choice to reject Hamas, Hezbollah, or whoever it is that seeks to hide their weapons and troops among civilian populations. If civilians allow this to continue, they are in effect, painting a bullseye on their own backs.

All of the above is apparently understood by Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper.
This is evidenced in his clear, unambiguous statement of his stance, his support for the Israeli right to self defence, and the need to disband and disarm terrorist movements such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
It has been a long time since Canada has seen a leader who leads - Harper's stance being even stronger than that of U.S. President George W. Bush.
The fact that this stance has earned criticism from the Left (Liberals, NDP, BQ, etc.) shows that 1) the Left don't know much about politics - but that's to be expected from people who still think that Socialism, Communism's slightly-quieter cousin, works and 2) War is evil and to be avoided at all costs (even if that means letting the Jews die again).
Furthermore, it shows that for once, we are abandoning the mushy middle ground, in favour of choosing a side on principle, and standing by our position.
Given the verbal and moral gymnastics and yoga that we're accustomed to from our "leaders", such as blubbering Paul Martin, whom you could listen to for hours and not know what the heck he was trying to say, to say that this departure from "tradition" by Harper is refreshing is an understatement.
After all, when was the last time you heard a Canadian leader say something meaningful, and call a spade "a spade?"
When was the last time you heard a Canadian leader denounce some certain group as "evil" (Paul Martin was busy going to Tamil Tiger fundraisers, and Chretien had his moral compass upside down)?
Now we have a Prime Minister, a man, who says what is true, with force, with principle, and intelligence.

How terribly un-Canadian.

No one wants a real hero...

2006-06-28T12:50:00.000-04:00

Orphanage director arrives home, alone
Missionary on his kidnapping ordeal

Ed Hughes at a hotel after returning to Canada on Monday night: He spoke of exchanging gunfire with his abductors as he tried to resist capture, and his days as a prisoner in Haiti's most dangerous neighbourhood.

Ed Hughes at a hotel after returning to Canada on Monday night: He spoke of exchanging gunfire with his abductors as he tried to resist capture, and his days as a prisoner in Haiti's most dangerous neighbourhood.

Mary Vallis, National Post
Published: Wednesday, June 28, 2006

TORONTO - No one at Pearson International Airport seemed to recognize Ed Hughes, a Canadian missionary held hostage in Haiti for nearly a week, when he arrived alone in Canada just before midnight on Monday.

No family members or friends met him at the airport. He arrived on a flight from Miami arranged by Canadian embassy officials in Port-au-Prince, a weary-looking one-armed man padding through the quiet terminal in search of a ride.

With a small backpack slung over one shoulder, the 71-year-old requested a ride at the limousine counter, only to be told he needed a reservation.

He calmly walked outside to hail a cab.

When the National Post offered him a lift to a location of his choosing, he readily accepted.

After he slept, got a haircut and replaced the glasses he lost in the kidnapping, the missionary agreed to share the details of his life and abduction.

His kidnapping was the second time in less than six months his life had been threatened in Haiti.

His right arm was amputated after armed men surrounded his truck and shot him during the abduction of another man affiliated with his Tytoo Gardens orphanage, which is home to about two dozen Haitian children.

As Mr. Hughes recounted his story yesterday, tears welled in his blue eyes when he spoke of the orphans. He left the country without seeing the children after his release on Saturday. He is more concerned for the children's welfare than his own: He has raised some of them from infancy and considers them his own sons and daughters. But Mr. Hughes has not made any decisions about returning to Haiti.

"At this point in my life, I'm finally making a difference," he said. "The Lord has let me do this. These kids coming to me, the Lord sends me these kids."

Mr. Hughes opened the mission in the mid-1990s. He previously operated a sex club in near Hamilton, Ont. Police raided the club in 1981 and charged nearly 100 swingers. A few years later, Mr. Hughes and his wife left their life behind in Ontario and set sail for the Caribbean on a $200,000 yacht named Tytoo.

After sailing to Cuba, Venezuela, Jamaica and other tropical ports and splitting with his wife, Mr. Hughes eventually settled in Haiti, landed a lucrative maintenance job at the Canadian embassy and began building a nightclub complete with a waterfall and pig roaster. But as he built the club in the small village of Simonette, Mr. Hughes found himself bringing home more and more food for the hungry Haitian children who stopped by. Around the same time, he found God and began a life radically different from the one he led in Canada.

"There was no big thunder or anything," he said. He realized he could serve a higher purpose if he installed a kitchen and properly fed the scores of children showing up on his doorstep each day.

"As I looked at the kids, I simply started doing more for the kids and less for myself. Over a very short period of time, I was doing nothing for myself and everything for the kids. I simply became a pipeline for God. Whatever was to be done, I did it. But not for me."

Story continued:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=a3277ebc-4b0f-4663-b15f-90061889d054

How tremendously sad.
A true hero comes home, and no one even cares. Were he some media-manufactured "celebrity", he'd have legions of fans awaiting him - but no, here is just a quiet man who went and built an orphanage, lost an arm and got kidnapped in the process of helping others.

Pathetic.

Were he some contestant on some damned reality show, you could bet that there'd be people who recognized him. But no, he's just a man who came back from a meaningless existence to find purpose, hope, and solace in God, and who tried to give back the same to those who needed it.

This is the state of our mindless generation - we don't recognize or celebrate true heroism anymore, choosing instead to worship at the altar of convenience, comfort, and entertainment.

Absolutely despicable - I'm beyond words to show my contempt for this situation.

Smorgasbord: Da Vinci Code and the TTC

2006-05-30T14:49:00.000-04:00

Da Vinci Code - How shall we respond?

As a Christian, I am intrigued by the attention garnered by Dan Brown's massively-successful work of fiction, The Da Vinci Code, which has been recently made into a movie.
This is a work that claims to debunk conventional Christian thought and history, by suggesting the Jesus didn't really die, and that He married Mary Magdalene (a claim that is not really found in the Gospel of Thomas or any other Gospel, canonized or otherwise).

What is truly remarkable is the level of ignorance of Biblical history, and the whole process behind the canonization of the Scriptures in broad segments of society, and even amongst believers.
As Christians (and this I address to my brothers and sisters) we have a duty to be informed and able to answer all who question us. We need to know what is going on in the world - we must be fluent in the art of debate, critical thinking, and analysis, as well as the history behind our faith.
Rather than lash out against this pop-cultural phenomenon with defensive posturing, we should take a page from the Catholic Opus Dei organization, which receives particularly brutal treatment and vitriol from Brown, who paints the organization as a bunch of sado-masochist wackjobs.
We should tap into the revival of interest in our faith (both Protestants and Catholics alike) and use it as an opportunity to dispel myths and untruths, and to introduce our God and our faith to those who don't know, and seek.

Let us not miss out on this opportunity - just as Joseph's betrayal by his brothers turned out to be a blessing and a source of development and riches, this current interest can likewise be channeled for good.
I suggest that those who seek to know, and those who seek to understand, pick up some books on apologetics, or frequent websites of that stripe. Read up on C.S. Lewis and other noted Christian thinkers. Read up on the history of the church in order to understand that the process of canonization was not (as many mistakenly claim) a man-made attempt to gain power through the ages.

TTC and Unions - Another testimony to free markets and neoliberalism

The people of Toronto on Monday experienced what the people of England did in the 60s-70s, and what the people of America experienced in the 70s-80s.
The wrath of unions that grow too influential and too big for their britches, ultimately falls on the blue-collar Joe, and on the average citizen.
Amid self-righteous union claims, if one cares to look, there is a big dollar sign at the core.
Unions have evolved (or devolved) from truly useful and truly necessary entities that protected workers rights in the early industrial age, to being overweight, overpaid, underworked, and greedy bodies today, with management that claims to fight for the good of the workers.
These claims are hollow when one looks at the many instances of unions hiring thugs to "convince" those they claim to protect to vote one way or another.

Canada today needs a Reagan or a Thatcher to show these union bosses (who really are little different from mob bosses) what's up: We will not be held hostage.
Such leadership, sadly, does not appear in the offing - at least not on the municipal and provincial level. Mayor David Miller and Premier Dalton McGuinty have in the past shown themselves to be unwilling to carry a hardline against union extortion and threats, unlike Iron Mike Harris of the Common Sense Revolution.

It would appear that we have come to an era, with workers rights protected like never before, where unions have become a hindrance to development and progress, rather than a saviour. On a different but unrelated note, CUPE, the largest union of public employees in Ontario, recently voted to boycott Israel, citing the Palestinian suffering (ignoring that much of this is self-inflicted) as a reason, and echoing the Hamas talking points (as most good doctrinaire leftists tend to do) with nary a peep of critical thinking, or even mention of the atrocities committed regularly against Israel. After all, it's much harder to condemn a nation for defending itself if you mention the fact that it is surrounded by foes who refuse to acknowledge its right to exist, and who have stated a goal of pushing the Jews into the sea.

Back on topic, the whole union topic only serves to support the capitalist free market mechanism. In quasi-socialist Canada (or rather, Toronto) and much of the Western world (which really should know better), we've come to associate private enterprise and free markets with greed and evil.
Apparently the public enterprises and long food lines of the Soviet Union, the rundown and ramshackle conditions of Cuba, and the starving millions of North Korea are preferable to our current condition in the west. But that's besides the point.
What the TTC has shown with this, is that a publicly-owned monopoly is no more trustworthy than a privately-owned one. If Toronto public transit was open to competition, strikes, high fares, inefficiency, and lousy service would be a failsafe plan to fail as a business.
Sadly, with the government dumping buckets of cash into the system, there is no incentive to be efficient.
What results, is what we've seen with the TTC and other bastions of unionized thuggery.

Hard realism and action on Darfur?

2006-05-25T13:30:00.000-04:00

The following is a letter I sent to the National Post in response to the tragic deaths of 17 Afghan civilians in a coalition air strike against the Taliban:

Re: Casualties of War, May 25

As tragic as the death of 17 Afghan villagers in the aftermath of a coalition air strike was, if one looks at this with a clear mind, the unpalatable-but-true realization dawns that it would only encourage the Taliban, al-Qaeda, etc. to use civilians as human shields in the future, if coalition forces were to refrain from striking these terrorists, every time they take civilians hostage or use them as shields.

To do so would send the undeniable message Coalition forces can be stopped by hiding the homes of innocent Afghan (or Iraqi) civilians, which would have dire consequences, not only for the men and women who don the uniform to defend our freedom and our values, but also for the men, women and children whom we are trying to liberate and save. It would embolden these cowards to contemptuous acts such as hiding amongst civilians, using hospitals and religious buildings as fortifications, or employing children and the disaffected as tools of war.

The only way to minimize such abhorrent exploitation of civilians is to make it clear to our enemies: We will not waver – do not hide behind civilians because it will not work.

Likewise, civilians must realize that these so-called “freedom fighters” are not their friends, and that giving them shelter will risks tragedy and suffering rather than safety or benefit. The only way this can be done is by signaling our intent to both those we seek to protect, and our enemy that taking shelter among civilians will offer no protection.

This is the whole rationale behind the refusal of many Western governments to negotiate with terrorists – the understanding that to capitulate once would inevitably invite further, and likely greater trespasses by an enemy who does not adhere to any code of conduct or honour greater than expedience and survival, who sees mercy as weakness, and civilians as little more than protective vests to be sacrificed for their own survival.

And as difficult as it is to accept, it is most certainly the only way to minimize harm to non-combatants in the long term.

It is unfortunate, but there are evil people in the world who would hide behind women and children in order to save their own sorry hides.
The only way to prevent this is to show that it doesn't work.

Even if that means sending them on a one way trip to Hades.

On another, more positive note, it seems that there is finally meaningful action (or plans for action) on the Darfur crisis.
Another $40M has been pledged by our government to assist humanitarian operations as well as peace-supporting operations (a vague term, to be sure).
Hopefully, we will soon see some meaningful peacemaking operations by the West (which these days, means the Anglosphere of the U.S., Britain, and Australia - though Canada under Stephen Harper seems more welcoming of proactive action in that regard).

Darfur Redux

2006-05-09T12:38:00.000-04:00

As of late, there's been a sudden stirring of voices and activity on the issue of the wartorn Darfur region in Sudan.

An estimated 300,000 have been killed thus far, victims of the Arab janjaweed rebels who roam Sudan and with the complicity of the government in Khartoum, have been on a campaign to exterminate black Muslims and Southern Christians for the past 2 years or so.

After plenty of talk of action, we are now hearing strong talk of action from that most efficient of multinational genocide stoppers, the U.N.
We've also seen the musings of various Hollywood stars such as George Clooney (Hollywood stars being our intellectual and moral superiors because they can pretend to be heroes on the silverscreen) about how action MUST be taken to stop this atrocity.

On this point, I heartily agree - the war in Darfur MUST be stopped, and it can only be stopped via force, which is the only thing those barbarians who would slaughter unarmed men, women and children understand.

However, Clooney and his uninformed ilk also attach a substantial condition to their support for meaningful action: Any intervention must be done via multilateral cooperation.
Translation: It must be U.N. sanctioned.

This is, of course, bunk. Look at the bang-up job the U.N. did in Somalia. Rwanda. Cambodia. The Balkans.
If there's anything we can learn from these debacles, its that, as the brilliant Mark Steyn has observed, the U.N. has a penchant for taking action only once the last body has hit the ground, and the last village burned down.

If these people were serious about saving the Sudanese, they would be calling for action NOW, regardless of who sanctions it or joins the effort. However, this would negate their criticism of the Bush administration (which is their bread and butter stateside) and the Coalition of the Willing who have liberated Iraq and Afghanistan from leaders who were genocidal, and/or brutal, and/or ruthless, and/or extremist to the nth degree.

It was also with amusement that I read news of the U.N., which is calling for funding for its efforts to bring food into the Sudan for the refugees.
This is from the same group of people who brought us the Oil-for-Food program/scandal in Saddam's Iraq, in which billions of dollars were skimmed into the coffers of shady power brokers such as Canadian Maurice Strong, Kofi Annan's son, Saddam himself and his closest supporters, all at the expense of the millions of Iraqis who had to deal with a brutally repressive regime, on top of economic collapse and food shortages.
Yet, these same people (who have shown little signs of change or reform) now ask us to entrust more money to them, ostensibly for the good of the refugees.
Thanks, but no thanks. I for one will limit my charity to groups I trust, such as the Red Cross or World Vision.

And I would like to thank our moral superiors again for (finally) noticing the situation in Sudan (after 2 years and 300,000 dead bodies). A shining example of compassion and kindness, they are.

They really, really hate us.... Bless their souls!

2006-03-29T16:33:00.000-05:00

Evangelical teens rally in S.F.

Joe Garofoli, Chronicle Staff Writer

Saturday, March 25, 2006

More than 25,000 evangelical Christian youth landed Friday in San Francisco for a two-day rally at AT&T Park against "the virtue terrorism" of popular culture, and they were greeted by an official city condemnation and a clutch of protesters who said their event amounted to a "fascist mega-pep rally."

"Battle Cry for a Generation" is led by a 44-year-old Concord native, Ron Luce, who wants "God's instruction book" to guide young people away from the corrupting influence of popular culture.

Luce, whose Teen Mania organization is based in Texas, kicked off a three-city "reverse rebellion" tour Friday night intended to counter a popular culture that he says glamorizes violence and sex. The $55 advance tickets for two days of musical performances and speeches were sold out, but walk-up admission was available for $199.

After stops in Detroit and Philadelphia in the next few weeks, Luce wants to unleash a "blitz" of youth pastors into the communities to do everything from work with the homeless to find new ways to bring others to Christ. He challenged youth leaders to double the size of their groups in the next year.

And then he plans to return to San Francisco next year to chart their progress.

That's bad news to Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who told counterprotesters at City Hall on Friday that while such fundamentalists may be small in number, "they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco."

Luce didn't flinch in the face of the counterprotest. The author, host of the "Acquire the Fire TV" cable television program and a President Bush appointee to a federal anti-drug-abuse commission, wants teens to find Bible-based solutions for the spread of sexually transmitted disease, teen pregnancy, drug abuse and suicide.

The villains, Luce said, range from the promiscuity and "sexualization" of young people on MTV and the popular online meeting hub MySpace.com to a corporate culture that spends millions trying to woo the under-21 crowd.

Battle Cry will try to bring them back to God through two days of religious rockers, speakers and the debut of what Luce called a Christian alternative to My Space.com.

"This is more than a spiritual war," Luce said. "It's a culture war."

Military metaphors abound in Luce's descriptions of the struggle. He tells young people of how "an enemy has launched a brutal attack on them." At a pre-Battle Cry rally Friday afternoon on the steps of City Hall, Luce told his mostly teenage audience that "terrorists of a different kind" -- advertisers -- were targeting them and that they were "caught in the middle of the battle."

"Are you ready to go to battle for your generation?" he asked, and the young people roared "yes!" and some waved triangular red flags flown from long, medieval-looking poles.

Luce's approach has been praised by conservative leaders from the Rev. Jerry Falwell to Fox News commentator Sean Hannity. Much of the statistical backing for the horrors Luce sees on TV is provided by the Parents Television Council, which is funded by conservative foundations such as the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.

Those alliances weren't lost on the 50 protesters representing a rainbow of San Francisco's left -- from abortion-rights advocates to anti-war activists to atheists -- who staged Friday's counterprotest.

"There is a real intolerancy to homosexuality in a lot of these organizations," said Peter Cobb, an organizer with Not In Our Name.

Earlier this week, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution condemning the "act of provocation" by what it termed an "anti-gay," "anti-choice" organization that aimed to "negatively influence the politics of America's most tolerant and progressive city."

Luce said it was the first time one of his events has been officially condemned.

A Battle Cry invitation to teenagers made plain the symbolism of gathering in San Francisco for a pre-event rally at "the very City Hall steps where several months ago, gay marriages were celebrated for all the world to see."

Same-sex marriage "is another sign of the end of times," said Sherilyn David, referring to the apocalypse that some fundamentalist Christians believe is foretold in Scripture. The 22-year-old San Jose administrative assistant came to Battle Cry with 15 other young Christians on Friday and will be joined by 60 other friends Saturday.

Christian Gallion, a 15-year-old in town with his Assembly of God youth group from Humboldt County, shrugged off being called "fascists" by counterdemonstrators.

"It doesn't bother me," Gallion said. "It's a beautiful city, and we don't have anything against the protesters."

His youth pastor had no interest in engaging in political debates.

"I'm not here to hate anybody," Scott Thompson said. "This isn't about Bush or gays or anything other than being here to worship together."

That's not how some liberal leaders saw it.

"Even if it is done by a Barnum & Bailey crowd with a tent and some snake oil, I think we need to pay attention to it," said Supervisor Tom Ammiano, who authored the condemnation resolution. "We should not fall asleep at the wheel."

Separated by barricades and six feet of neutral sidewalk in front of City Hall, the two sides traded amplified calls to arms Friday.

On one side of the barricade was girl carrying a sign that said, "Instead of porn, show us Godly relationships." On the other, a woman held one that said, "I moved here to get away from people like you."

As Battle Cry organizers walked through the crowd of young people telling them, "Don't engage with them," one rain-soaked counterdemonstrator yelled, "And next time, come back in summer."

Luce said they will.

"We're going to be back here in a year, to see what kind of progress we've made," he said. "And we're going to be at AT&T Park. Or whatever it is called then."

So this is what it means to be the most "progressive and tolerant" city in North America?
Calling a bunch of young Christians out to enjoy music and promote their CHOICE of lifestyle (isn't that what the leftwing types are always bleating about).

Some gems of tolerance:
"they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco."
Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco (surprise: he's a Democrat)

"fascist mega-pep rally."
Protestor (who apparently wouldn't know fascism if it sent him/her to a concentration camp)

"There is a real intolerancy to homosexuality in a lot of these organizations,"
Peter Cobb, an organizer with Not In Our Name (Disagreement is now cast as intolerance - what then can we say of these protestors' disagreement with Christians?)

Board of Supervisors passed a resolution condemning the "act of provocation" by what it termed an "anti-gay," "anti-choice" organization that aimed to "negatively influence the politics of America's most tolerant and progressive city." (Irony, irony, irony)

And now some gems from the hatemongering-Christian-fascist-Bush-Nazis:

"It doesn't bother me. It's a beautiful city, and we don't have anything against the protesters."
Christian Gallion, a 15-year-old on being called "fascists" by counterdemonstrators:

"I'm not here to hate anybody, This isn't about Bush or gays or anything other than being here to worship together."
Scott Thompson, Youth Pastor

Make no mistake - these Christians are scary, they is...
Ah, hypocrisy just the way I like it...
Thick and goopy.

Who gives a damn? Just some niggers dying.

2006-03-14T13:42:00.000-05:00

It's been roughly 2 years since we in the West were alerted to the atrocities and slaughter being committed in Darfur, with complicity of the Sudanese government in Khartoum.

In that time, we have heard concerned Westerners talk a lot about "alleviating the suffering" - we've even had UN Ambassador, US actress Angelina Jolie, do a tour of the region, complete with photo-ops.
Ditto our own former PM, Paul Martin.

In that time, we've heard of ethnically- and religiously-motivated killings, as Arab janjaweed militias would systematically hunt and kill their neighbours who happened to be black, or kaffir (non-Muslims). We've heard reports of whole farming families machinegunned because they happened to be different.
We've heard of babies being killed, women being raped, and other atrocities.
We've seen virtually everything - except meaningful action to stop the killing, the rape, and the genocide.

In the meantime, we've had so-called black leaders like self-proclaimed Reverend Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and celebrities like Kanye West rail against those damned whitefolk for their inaction in Louisiana during hurricane Katrina and its aftermath.
Where's the outrage for these poor black people in Darfur?
Oh that's right: they don't buy your CDs, do they Kanye? Nor do they make donations to your causes and share your opinions, do they Jesse and Al?

In fact, for the last little while, the news has been virtually silent on the whole issue of the genocide in Darfur. Indeed, it seems that the UN is still reluctant to call it a "genocide."
The US President, that evil monkeyman Bush, seems to be the only Western leader who still cares about Darfur.
Unfortunately, given the hectoring of the Europeans for Iraq, as well as the Europeans' sitting on their hands and unreliability on such issues, as well as the "optics" of the US being seen invading another Muslim country, can one really blame them for their cautiousness?
What about the UN?
All bark and no bite (and seemingly only with bark when it concerns America and Israel).
France? Will only intervene when its vital colonial interests are threatened (see the Ivory Coast), and when it can piss off America.

What are we waiting for?
Do we need 800,000 corpses like in Rwanda before we'll move to intervene?
Or is it simply because this isn't our problem - that we should let them kill each other?
What will it take to prod us into action?

It took millions of dead Jews in the 1940s.
We heard "Never again."

It happened again.

It took more than 300,000 dead in Somalia, 1993.
It took almost a million in Rwanda, 1994.

Today, 300,000 and counting have died at the hands of the Arab Janjaweed militias, and their accomplices in Khartoum.

How many more corpses? How many more body bags?
How many more dead babies, starved to death, murdered or executed; will young mothers and fathers have to bury, before we take action?

Remember your Creator while young

2006-03-08T21:30:00.000-05:00

Ecclesiastes 11:8-10

8 However many years a man may live,
let him enjoy them all.
But let him remember the days of darkness,
for they will be many.
Everything to come is meaningless.
9 Be happy, young man, while you are young,
and let your heart give you joy in the days of your youth.
Follow the ways of your heart
and whatever your eyes see,
but know that for all these things
God will bring you to judgment.

Ever feel a tremendous sense of regret for something you did, or didn’t do?
No doubt, we all know the sting of regret for doing things that we should not have, but have you ever felt the regret that comes from not doing something?
I have, and I can tell you that it is at least as bad a feeling, and at least as deep a regret as any you’ll feel from doing something you weren’t supposed to do.

I don’t know about you, but I often hear people say that I should turn the days of my youth towards better things than serving God, or serving at church; that I should spend my most productive days in the pursuit of happiness, wealth, and security.
In the Book of Ecclesiastes, the wise man, Solomon knocks down a bunch of fallacies that we hear repeated, even today. The world, the gurus and the “informed” tell us that without wealth and success, we cannot be happy, or feel satisfied. Solomon however, tells us that this is a fallacy – a lie that has led to many a wasted life, and many a shattered dream.

For those who serve at church, or live out their purpose in other ways, there will always be the voice of those who tell us it is foolish to sacrifice our youth, our best years, to the service of God.
They tell us that we should turn our attentions to more “important” things, like the accretion of wealth, the forging of our careers, etc.
While these things are good and well (we certainly should work to develop our careers and seek to succeed), are they really the be-all, end-all goal that the world declares them to be?

Ecclesiastes 12:1-8

1 Remember your Creator
in the days of your youth,
before the days of trouble come
and the years approach when you will say,
"I find no pleasure in them"-

I don’t know about you, but I’ve been told that I should only serve God once my physical and financial needs have been met and secured – that I should turn to serve God only when my career has been set, and I have a plush, comfortable lifestyle, complete with a six-figure salary, nice car, nice home, etc.
Solomon, one of the wisest men to have ever walked the earth, says otherwise.
He tells us that we should remember the One who has given us our very lives, and indeed, all those strengths and capabilities that we use so well to pursue material riches, when we are young – in the prime of our lives, when we can give Him our best.

This message is echoed elsewhere in the Bible – from the Old Testament (i.e. the detailed information on the various offerings of the Israelites to God, all of which required that we give Him our absolute best), to the New Testament, when the Apostle Paul exhorts us to run our race for our Saviour.

Can you really afford to wait until later to give to God what is His?
Do you really want to? Think of all the great experiences He has in store for you – will you turn these down so that you can get settled in the world?
In 2004, I had the opportunity to go to Macau to teach English as part of a Short-term Missions trip. The trip cost more than $2500, was a volunteer job, and meant that I would not be able to spend my summer working (which is what my parents wanted).
Thank God I didn’t listen to my own doubts – having gone through that experience, I can tell you that I would not trade it for anything in the world.

2 before the sun and the light
and the moon and the stars grow dark,
and the clouds return after the rain;
3 when the keepers of the house tremble,
and the strong men stoop,
when the grinders cease because they are few,
and those looking through the windows grow dim;
4 when the doors to the street are closed
and the sound of grinding fades;
when men rise up at the sound of birds,
but all their songs grow faint;
5 when men are afraid of heights
and of dangers in the streets;
when the almond tree blossoms
and the grasshopper drags himself along
and desire no longer is stirred.
Then man goes to his eternal home
and mourners go about the streets.

Will you continue to wait to honour God?
Why not now? Will you wait until you are old and frail? Will you wait until your life is laced with responsibilities and burdens beyond what you have now?
Will you wait until you’re being chased by deadlines, bills, and the duties of family life?
Will you wait until you are no longer the brave, adaptable, and passionate young man or woman you are today? Will you wait until the best days of your youth and your life are behind you?
Why not give Him your best today, while you are strong, vigorous, and young?

6 Remember him—before the silver cord is severed,
or the golden bowl is broken;
before the pitcher is shattered at the spring,
or the wheel broken at the well,
7 and the dust returns to the ground it came from,
and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
8 "Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher.
"Everything is meaningless!"

It doesn’t get any clearer than this:
If you keep waiting for the right time to give God your best, you will always be waiting.
The “right time” never comes, if it is the “right time” on your terms.
Why not give your best to God on His time, His perfect time, in accordance to His perfect, pleasing will?
What are you afraid of, from the God Who is BOUND by His Word, to give you the best? What are you afraid of from the One Who has plans to prosper you, and not to harm you?
How long are you going to deprive yourself of a taste of what it’s like to serve God’s purposes? To experience what He wants to bless you with?

Don’t forget what Jesus Himself says in Matthew 10:29-33, 37-39

29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
32 "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.
37 "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38 and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

How long will we continue to say to God “I don’t trust You to provide for me”?
How long will we continue to let our faith be untested, unchallenged, and unreleased?

Don’t wait. Not for next year. Not for tomorrow. Not for the next minute.
Remember your Creator today.
Remember your Creator now.

Man, they are so stupid...

2006-02-13T22:00:00.000-05:00

Silly Greenpeace...

I took this picture awhile back at school.
Note the righteous indignation of our moral and intellectual "superiors", who castigate those evil corporations for slaying defenseless trees everywhere.
I trust the irony of their choice to advertise their "save the trees" campaign by plastering 8 X 11 sheets of paper everywhere is not lost on you.

In yet another example of poorly-thought-out advocacy for poorly-thought-out goals, is the recent action by the Montreal group, Action Terroriste Socialement Acceptable (read about it here), who decided to take it upon themselves to ticket drivers of "fuel-guzzling SUVs" (yes, those evil soccer moms, driving the chariots of those EVIL corporations).
Handing out more than 1,200 official-looking tickets, these moral crusaders took their message of repentance for our vehicle choices to the street, again sacrificing several trees to make their point about how we're killing the planet. Tellingly, these gentle, kind, and compassionate folks termed their quarry (those immoral SUV drivers) with the unoffensive nickname "Fat Bastards." (They're so kind to withhold the kind of epithets that inhuman, uncompassionate beasts such as myself really deserve).
Not surprisingly, the training video for these conscientious "enlightened ones" contained pictures of the offending vehicles, "juxtaposed over clips of [evil] U.S. president George Bush, aerial shots of suburban sprawl [did I mention? If you are a suburbanite, you're part of the problem too!] and images of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York" (because, as we all know, 9/11 wasn't perpetrated by radical Jihadist/Islamists, but rather U.S. government employees, who dropped explosive-laden Ford Explorers on the Pentagon and Twin Towers)

Quite frankly, these so-called "friends of the earth" (or the "enlightened"/"compassionate"/"superior" as they'd like to be thought of) are nothing but a bunch of intellectual lightweights.

Not only do they campaign against the big corporations that invest money into impoverished economies, but they are among the biggest of hypocrites.
In their zeal to compensate for their cushy, comfortable, Western lifestyles, they seek to assuage their guilt (and it is almost invariably a leftwing/liberal type who displays these symptoms) by denying developing countries from having a chance to industrialize and pull themselves from the depths of poverty.
And they call this "compassion" for the poor.

N.B. I realize that often, these profits are not reinvested, as they should be, into the local economy and infrastructure. However, this is a problem rooted in the corruption and poor political practices of most developing nations, rather than a problem rooted in capitalism or rich countries and those dastardly corporations (did I mention that corporations are invariably EVIL?)

These same geniuses campaign against Genetically-Engineered foods. While I understand the dangers of "playing God" and making freak crops, I also understand that most GM/GE crops are engineered conservatively - the main changes being made so that the crops will have higher yields, greater resilience against disease, greater tolerances for climate conditions etc. - changes which are ultimately geared towards making food cheaper, stronger, more plentiful, etc.
Guess who benefits from this? Try anyone and anything that eats!

Genetic modification is potentially the next Green Revolution; a time when science and technology will allow us to feed more people than we ever thought possible, thus defusing the mythical "Population Bomb" that the left have foisted upon us since the 60s.

The solution for all the world's ills, according to groups like PETA or Greenpeace is, has always been, and always will be, to crawl back under the blankets, cease developing and refining ourselves, and just let nature take control. In otherwords, mass starvation of the unfortunate, and mass abortions for the poor so that they won't take up all our space and food - sorry folks, you just don't make the cut (How's that for "compassion"?)!

Thank goodness; morons like those who staff or support Greenpeace, PETA, etc. don't run the world.

"A little learning is a dangerous thing."

The burqa has been lifted...

2006-02-08T19:40:00.000-05:00

If you've been keeping up with the news as of late, you'd know that there is a great furor in the Muslim world surrounding a bunch of cartoons published in Danish and Norwegian newspapers late last year (these have since been published in other countries and papers).

Since this issue came to a head a few weeks ago, numerous pundits have opined that the crux of this conflict centered around the concept of free speech.
While this is largely correct, I have some of my own thoughts to add.

Firstly, as some Muslims have pointed out, freedom of speech should be accompanied by good taste, civility, and wisdom. It certainly was not wise or in good taste for the Danish papers to have published those cartoons, which were crude, and not up to the standards of most political cartoons.

However, this does not mean that those who find themselves offended should feel they have the license to respond with violence and more hatred. In this sense, I find some irony in that the reaction of a large number of Muslims seems to have validated and proven the premise of the artists' work; that Islam is a religion of violence and suppression, rather than of peace, as is so often claimed.

Not only this, but given the virulent hatred towards Jews and Christians spewed by newspapers, political personalities/groups etc. in the Muslim world, the indignation and "moral outrage" exhibited by the Muslim world seems quite rich.
Apparently, "freedom for me, but not for thee" is what many Muslims believe in - they have the freedom to vilify Israel, America, the West, Christianity, Jews, etc., but it is unacceptable for others to do the same towards them.
This type of hypocrisy is evidenced by the continued ramblings of Iranian President, Ahmadinejad, and the reaction of Iranian news outlets to hold a competition for the "best" Holocaust cartoon (Ahmadinejad has often claimed that the Holocaust was a myth - anti-Semitism is very much in vogue in much of the Middle Eastern world).

Nor was this the full extent of the reaction - Danish and Norwegian embassies have been attacked, burned, stoned, etc. European people in the Middle East have been threatened and attacked. In Indonesia, the U.S. embassy was the site of violent demonstrations.
Everywhere, from Gaza and the West Bank, to Afghanistan, to the Middle East, Danish and Norwegian flags are being burned.
Churches are being bombed. Christian priests have been shot by gunmen crying "Allahu Akbar!" ("God is great").
Is this reaction something we should expect from a religion of peace?

Contrast this over-the-top reaction to a few crudely-drawn cartoons to what happens in the Western world.
Here, the Christian faith is often attacked, mocked, or denigrated, with nary a peep from most of our citizens and government officials (indeed, at times it is our government officials who spearhead the attack).
Those who do protest, do so by way of angry letters to the editor, peaceful demonstrations and gatherings, product boycotts, or other such non-violent means.
Some examples:
Not too long ago, Christianity was subjected to an "art" exhibit, which was a Crucifix (a venerated symbol of the Christian faith) submerged in a jar of urine (appropriately called "Piss Christ").
Simlarly, recently, NBC decided to pull a segment from the show "Will and Grace", which would have mocked the Christian faith by inserting a fictional segment featuring Britney Spears called "Crucifixin's", owing to the huge grassroots showing of displeasure, via e-mail and phone campaigns. I note that no TV executives were harmed in the process (though viewers who continue to subject themselves to "Will and Grace" ought to be checked in).
Still one more example: Pope Benedict XVI (formerly Cardinal Ratzinger) was featured in a similarly-tasteless cartoon, which depicted him giving the Nazi salute and exclaiming "Heil Mary!", a reference to the Pope's membership in the Hitler Youth as a child (forgetting/ignoring the context that membership was pretty much mandatory for all German youth at the time, regardless of their beliefs).

Did you see us Christians torching art gallerys? TV studios?
Stoning the artists (on the contrary, usually it is the artists who get themselves stoned)?
Of course not! There may have been a time when such acts would have led to death (i.e. the Inquisitions, Witchhunts, etc. are marks of the sometime failures of Christians to live in accordance to their faith), but we have progressed beyond that infantile stage, to a point where we are comfortable enough with our faith to discuss and debate.

This is a stage that the Muslim world and adherents of the Muslim faith MUST move towards, if they wish to gain a sympathetic and open ear.
Until they learn to cope with criticism (however unwarranted or tasteless it may be), they are only proving the point of those satirical and irreverent cartoons, and showing just how immature they are.

As it stands, angry Muslims who choose to express their discontent with violence and hatred are quickly dispelling what many have called a myth - that Islam is a religion of peace.
The veil has been lifted; the burqa removed. What has been revealed so far, is not pretty.

God Bless Canada - Nevermind

2006-01-24T21:54:00.000-05:00

Funny thing this morning:

As I was heading out to school, my dad had the radio tuned to a Chinese channel (probably FM88.9 in Toronto) which played a clip of the conclusion to Harper's victory speech, when he proudly exclaimed "God bless Canada!"

At the time, I sardonically remarked to my dad "Oh that insensitive, Bush-lite, America-sympathizing boor... How dare he say the words 'God' and 'Canada' in the same sentence? How American of him!"

No sooner than 5 minutes later, what do I hear on the radio (again FM 88.9)?

A political commentator remarked: "What did raise concerns about Harper's speech, as you heard, towards the end he makes a very American-style comment, 'God bless Canada', which seems a bit discomforting"

This is fudging (PG-13 site) ridiculous!
Despite the fact that our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains a reference and recognition to the supremacy of God, it is apparently "frightening" for a member of public office to ... *gasp* believe in God!

Once again, it's those scary evil Christian devils...

The ridiculousness was such that my dad (who disagrees with me on virtually all topics concerning religion) agreed that it was ridiculous to say this was somehow threatening, or that public officials somehow are not allowed to have religious beliefs.

Welcome to your Canada.

As for me, I'm seriously considering hightailing it to Alberta or the U.S. (where all the hillbillies and Christian wackjob rednecks live - or so I'm told by the Toronto-area media).
Scary-evangelical-bigot-monsterfiends like myself don't fit in well in compassionate, enlightened, civilized and tolerant Ontario...

Election time - Vote and vote wisely

2006-01-21T14:52:00.000-05:00

Monday January 23 will be election night in Canada.

It will be a historic night, with important ramifications for the future of our country.

It will see whether or not Canadians view ethics, accountability, transparency, and truth as tantamount, or if we would prefer to be bribed with our own money.

It will be a clash between the status quo - special interest politics, expensive contracts for friends of the government, kickbacks and graft for those in power, and arrogant assumption of control over individuals' lives - or change.
Change will represent a return to a Canada where individuals are rewarded for effort, where parents will be the ones who care for, and teach their children (instead of the government). It will be a Canada of individual responsibility, and a Canada where all citizens have a louder voice.

It will also be a conflict between the politics of fear, and the politics of hope.
The Liberals have already shown us which side they stand on.
We have heard them demonize Stephen Harper as scary, for suggesting that Canadians ought to work hard in order to secure their own living, or that there are ways that Canada should be improved.
For suggesting that parents should be the ones who choose how their children are raised.
For suggesting that traditional values on family and morality have a place in Canada.
For suggesting that there is a better way than what we are accustomed to.

This has manifest itself into outrageous comments, from the "beer and popcorn" comment repeated by 2 Liberal senior advisors (the accusation being that parents would just blow the money on beer and popcorn, instead of their children - showing that the Liberal party is better at parenting kids than parents), and the "Chow Chow dog" comments about Olivia Chow.
This contempt for some voters has also manifest itself in accusations (by Liberals, and also left-wing groups) that the Conservatives are "scary", "right-wing", "pro-Bush/US" and "controlled by evangelical Christians" who seek to "remove a woman's right to choose (abortion)," all of which is patently false. They have attempted to paint all socially-conservative Canadians as inhuman, intolerant, knuckledragging bigots (the irony being that they themselves are revealed to be intolerant of some Canadians).
It has also manifested itself (recently) in an outright lie - during a radio call in show interviewing Conservative candidate and incumbent MP Maurice Vellacott, a caller phoned in and publicly accused Mr. Vellacott of sexually abusing a church secretary.
(http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jan/06012001.html). Vellacott immediately denied the accusation, citing that he'd never been to that church, much less pastored there.
Afterward, that call was traced back to the Liberal Campaign HQ of Chris Axworthy, who (obviously) denies wrongdoing.

Is this conduct that we should reward?

In contrast, the Conservatives have offered policies designed to help middle class families, designed to help children, and designed for Canadians (rather than friends of the government).
They have also proven far more accomodating to minority groups such as the Chinese, Stephen Harper promising to apologize for the head tax issue if he forms government.
The Liberals, on the other hand, have waffled, refused to apologize, and given arrogance to the Chinese community, which has historically (and tragically) parked their vote with the Liberals.

Not only this, but at this point, the best hope for keeping Quebec in Canada, is to vote Conservative (The Conservatives are the leading federalist party in Quebec today, voters having become tired and disillusioned with the Liberals) - what message are we sending to Quebec if we vote for the party that tried to buy their allegiance?

As a side note, there is one aspect of the Liberals' scaremongering that has a grain of truth - the Conservatives would be pretty tough on downtrodden Canadians such as those currently incarcerated in our prisons. Under the Liberals, Canadian convicts have been granted the right to vote (despite having forfeited their rights as citizens by breaking the law). Surprise surprise, the convicts have expressed their hope for a Liberal win, citing a fear that Conservatives would take away their rights, their comforts, and their big screen TVs (in Canada, it may be better to be in jail than to be a free man).

I'm tired of being told I am not "Canadian enough" because my views are not shared by the Liberal party of Canada.
I'm tired of corruption, sleaze, mudslinging, and largesse.

That's why this election, I am voting Conservative.

I implore all Canadians who care about their country, who believe in truth, justice, and hope, to look into the platforms and views of the 3 big parties.
Look not to short-sighted tax-and-spend policies.
Look not to myopic capitulation to special interest groups.

Look to the future. Which future do you want for Canada?
A future where tradition is relegated to the scrap heap, and the majority becomes beholden to the minority?
Or a future where ethics and morals matter?

I've chosen my side.
I hope you choose yours.

In the name of tolerance

2006-01-03T20:08:00.000-05:00

A Supreme Court of Canada ruling recently redefined indecency, in response to sex clubs that facilitated the pursuit of spouse-swapping, group sex, etc. in Quebec.
The 7-2 majority ruled that the new determining factor was whether or not the activity caused harm, with Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin writing that "Moral views, even if strongly held, do not suffice."
Her royal highness continued: "As members of a diverse society, we must be prepared to tolerate conduct of which we disapprove." Apparently, the dream of a "multicultural, tolerant and diverse" society (unless, of course, if you stand for tradition, particularly Judeo-Christian tradition) is enough to override common sense.

We have now allowed ourselves to be placed at the mercy of our unelected, unaccountable judges, who see fit to alter and change societal traditions to their whims.
From the assault on marriage, to this contravention of basic decency, we are seeing the erosion of our most basic societal foundations, namely the family.

We now live in a country where the age of sexual consent is 14, with no restrictions for approximate age (that is, a 50 year old could legally enter into a sexual relationship with a 14 year old), and a country where clubs that encourage wife swapping, promiscuity and infidelity are decreed to be tolerated. Just when you think we couldn't get any lower...

More baffling is that our elite overlords have decided for us what constitutes harmful activity, and what doesn't. The SCoC claims no harm comes from these activities, and no effect will occur on the majority who do not partake in these activities.
What about STDs? The judges take this into account, but claim it is not related to indecency. Not only is this absolutely moronic (that's right, our Supreme Court Justices - 7 of them, at least, are MORONS), but it is patently untrue. Think about it: if we see increased incidences of sexually-transmitted disease, what effect does this have on our public healthcare system (which is strained and failing as it is)?
Don't tell me that there'd be no negative impact, and don't tell me society won't have to pay for it.
Not only this, but wouldn't the likelihood of cheaters in these couples increase, given that they would engage in such questionable activities?
This, logically, implies that they might then seek further sexual encounters outside of marriage, and if they are infected with sexual diseases, what are the ramifications then?

And that is only dealing with the immediate, tangible effects. What effect will the legalization of these clubs have on our children? What message are we sending them?
To put the problem into perspective, in a recent edition of the National Post, a former gangster wrote in a letter, explaining what led him and some of his former friends to enter a life of violence, drugs, and crime. One of his big "root causes": broken families, broken homes, and a lack of attention from parents.
Given that this is a root cause to the spike in violence we have seen in our city, Toronto the not-so-fair, what will it take for our political masters to understand how vital it is that we protect the structure and viability of our families, by protecting the sanctity of marriage?

Is this Christmas?

2005-12-21T12:04:00.000-05:00

Christmasphobia
Christ·mas·pho·bi·a

1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of any Christian tones that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous. Usually occurs during the period from Dec. 1 to Dec. 25, but has been observed almost year-round in recent years.
2. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion to the Christian roots and meanings found in observance of Christmas.

It seems that with every passing year, the true meaning of Christmas gets more and more diluted (if not erased), and more and more lost in the sea of consumerism that now marks the end of December.
Not only this, but increasingly, our media and our society exhorts us to use non-offensive, non-religious, and ultimately utterly meaningless expressions such as "Happy Holidays", or "Season's greetings" to greet our friends and family, for fear of offending them.

I have already made a post on the subject before (in the July 2005 section of postings), so I won't go into too much detail here, except to say this:
As a Christian, I am OFFENDED by this hijacking and usurpation of our holiday (derived from "holy day"). I am OFFENDED by the assertion that I am being an intolerant and ignorant boor if I wish my friends and family (Christian or not) a "Merry Christmas."
And I am ROUNDLY TICKED OFF that self-righteous, "tolerant" types feel the need to stifle and suppress any "terribly religious" meanings or implications from the public realm. This slap to the face, this assault on my freedom of religion, is in full view at every mall, every shopping plaza, every public school, and on TV.
This is an important point of contention that I believe NO Christian should back down from. Either we are intimidated by the world, and are embarrassed of Jesus, or we are not. We make our choices known, even in little things like what type of greeting cards we choose, or how we greet our friends and family this Christmas.

However important this point is, it is not the main point of my posting today.
Today, I want to talk about Christmas shopping.
Specifically, why is it that even we Christians have succumbed to the foolish notion that Christmas necessitates shopping and buying gifts for our friends and family.
Not that there is anything wrong with buying gifts (in fact, I'd encourage acts of kindness in any shape or form, at anytime of year - kindness and compassion are always in vogue), it's just that I do not believe that the Spirit of Christmas is the Spirit of the Gap, or the Spirit of Best Buy, etc.
Why is it that we've come to the point where Christmas is synonymous with shopping, while Christ is but a footnote?

If anyone at this point thinks that I am self-righteously preaching and condemning, bear in mind that I myself have bought things for friends and family this Christmas (and as such, I am just as guilty as the next person).

The point is, buying gifts and shopping to give, as fine as these things maybe, are not the reasons why we celebrate Christmas.

We celebrate Christmas because of Christ, to commemorate His coming down to earth as a man. No one else, and nothing else - just Him.

It has been said before (and I certainly believe it) that we Christians are a type of counter-culture, that we are going against the flow of the world. I believe that this is one of the issues where we should not be imitating the rest of the world.
That is why I propose this:

Starting next Christmas, rather than buy the hottest gifts, or the latest whatever for our friends and family, we buy something useful for someone who truly needs it.
Doesn't have to be fancy - maybe we can buy a goat through WorldVision for a poor farming family in Asia or a water pump for a farmer in Africa or a school for impoverished kids in South America. Or it can be something local, like buying something for the foodbank, donating a pint of blood, buying lunch or dinner for a homeless person, or even just doing some random act of kindness, like shovelling your neighbour's driveway.
For me personally, I would like to take it one step farther, and exhort all my friends and family to NOT buy me any Christmas gifts. I do not need or ask anything more than your continued friendship and fellowship - these are, to me, far more priceless than any material gift you could ever find (and I thank you all in advance!).

We in the West (and places like Hong Kong) are the most affluent and comfortable generation that this world has ever known. For most of us, we are lacking in very little in the way of material goods and necessities - there really isn't anything that we absolutely NEED (contrary to what marketers and advertisers tell us). If anything, I believe what we do need is a shift in focus and a reality check - away from consumerist drives at Christmas, away from self-centered and selfish delusions that we absolutely need the latest gadget or gift.
I believe that such a shift would take us back to the meaning of Christmas, a meaning that really has nothing to do with buying or receiving things we don't need, and more to do with giving things that are far more precious and meaningful than any material good.
I believe that such a shift would help us to remember, if only just a little bit, of the huge gift that we all got when Christ came to earth, away in a manger in Bethlehem.

Therefore, I humbly make this proposal, with the hope that there are others out there who feel as I do, who feel that the meaning of Christmas has been kidnapped by all those adverisements, all those gadgets and toys, by unoffensive characters like Santa Claus, etc. Let us cast off the shackles of consumerism and materialism (gosh, I sound like a Marxist), and the bright lights and loud noises that distract us from the true meaning of Christmas.
Let us instead, focus our minds and hearts toward the important things in life - which are seldom "things" at all - towards compassion, love, goodwill, family, and most important of all, Christ-given salvation.

Merry Christmas.

Why I will support Stephen Harper and the Conservatives

2005-12-12T13:26:00.000-05:00

Busy studying, but since the destiny of Canada's leadership hangs in the balance, I guess I could take a break. In the days to come (once my exams are done) I will try to post some stuff about why I, as a Chinese Christian, will support the supposedly-racist, immigrant-hating Conservatives (according to Liberals, anyways).

If you are a person of faith (Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, WHATEVER) I encourage you to look at the link below to see what some supporters of the NDP, Liberals and Greens think about your right to have religious beliefs:

http://www.domainbaron.com/Stephen_Harper_warning.html

The background of this site is this:
(From the CBC)

Instead, web users who try to access the site www.windsorpolice.ca are now taken to a site critical of Conservative Leader Stephen Harper.

Last week, police departments in several Canadian cities surprised to find that websites with similar names to theirs were redirecting web users to the NDP website.

The web addresses included www. reginapolice.ca, www.saskatoonpolice.ca and several others with names similar to police departments in Vancouver, Windsor and Edmonton.

I note with some amusement that this site isn't just critical of Harper - it is HATE PROPAGANDA.
It advocates hatred against Christians in particular.
This isn't simple "criticism" - this is slander and murderous hatred (look at the picture with the website owner holding a sign that says "IF Jesus comes back, KILL HIM AGAIN").
Good 'ol fashioned bigotry and hatred is alive and well - and it comes not from us stone age, knuckle-dragging Christians, but from the "enlightened, progressive, tolerant left."

Twelve Days of Christmas, and 199 Liberal Scandals to keep in mind

2005-12-01T20:57:00.000-05:00

Note: These are in addition to promising to defend marriage as between one man and one woman in 2000, and then promptly flip-flopping in 2003.

1. Cancelling the Sea King replacement (Johan's note: This was done by Chretien in a huff over alleged wrongdoing by the Mulroney government in seeking a replacement - these allegations have since been totally dropped by the RCMP, after 12 years, numerous Sea King-related mishaps, accidents, and embarassments, and Liberal amounts of hot air)
2. Sponsorship scandal (Organized Crime?! They're right: Harper should apologize - to the mob, for linking them with the Liberals!)
3. Gun Registry (Many years, and $2 billion later, guns are still a problem, particularly in the urban areas where - *gasp* - duck hunters with long rifles AREN'T the perps shooting up people)
4. HRDC boondoggle (This is what happens when you have patronage politics and rampant cronyism)
5. Problems with Transition Job Funds program
6. Tainted blood
7. Radwanski Spending Affair
8. Pearson Airport
9. GST Flip Flop (Who was it that said they'd kill the GST in '93?)
10. Airbus Investigation (That would be the "Eurocopter Affair" - See #1)
11. Voting against Red Book promise of independent Ethics Commissioner
12. Irving fishing lodge stays/travel on Irving jets for cabinet ministers
13. Martin traveling on private corporate jets as Finance Minister (Who's in the pocket of "big business" again?)
14. Don Boudria's stay at Boulay owned chalet
15. Denis Coderre staying with Boulay
16. Alfonso Gagliano being appointed Ambassador to Denmark (Now here's a true mobster...)
17. Shawinigate
18. Claude Gauthier (PM's friend)'s Transelec getting CIDA grant that was questioned by the Auditor General and even CIDA.
19. Liberal fundraiser Pierre Corbeil charged with fraud by RCMP after he approached several Quebec companies seeking federal job training grants and asking for payments to Liberal Party, having gotten the names from senior Quebec Liberal Minister, Marcel Masse.
20. Michel Dupuy, Heritage Minister, lobbying the CRTC.
21. Tom Wappel refusing to help blind veteran
22. Gagliano's son benefiting from contracts from his father's department
23. Gagliano's former speechwriter, Michele Tremblay was on a $5,000 a month retainer with the Canada Lands Company to provide speeches for the Minister. Former President John Grant let her go saying "we got nothing in return." Grant claimed that all Crown Corporations reporting to Mr. Gagliano were told to put Ms. Tremblay on a monthly retainer.
24. Iltis replacement
25. Purchase of new Challenger jets for the Prime Minister and cabinet
26. NATO Flying Training program contract
27. Liberal friends appointed as IRB judges being investigated by RCMP
28. Hedy Fry's imaginary burning crosses (Yup, it's the Conservatives who are bigoted racists - because such slander is legit when it comes from a Liberal)
29. Maria Minna's improper municipal vote
30. Minna giving contracts to two former campaign staffers for public relations work for a conference that had already been held
31. Lawrence MacAulay and contracts directed to Holland College
32. Lawrence MacAulay and Tim Banks
33. Lawrence MacAulay hired his official agent, Everett Roche, for $70K, but Roche never did any work for it. (Oct 2002)
34. Art Eggleton and contracts to his ex-girlfriend
35. Copps' aide Boyer's spending habits
36. Collenette resigns for breach of ethical guidelines involving a letter he wrote to the Immigration and Refugee Board
37. APEC Inquiry
38. Andy Scott's 1998 resignation that came eight weeks too late, after a media circus wore him down for indiscreetly shooting his mouth off on an airplane.
39. Anti-American comments by Liberal MPs, officials, and the former Minister of Natural Resources. (The Americans buy 85% of our products. Billions of dollars in trade cross our mutual border each day. They defended us in the Cold War, and continue to defend our continent. I'm sure it's a good idea to insult and denigrate them.)
40. Rock and the Apotex/Cipro affair
41. Rock giving Health Canada contract to car cleaning company.
42. Manley lobbying CIBC on behalf of Rod Bryden
43. Manley's fundraiser suggesting donors to his leadership write it off as a business expense.
44. Manley using his pre-budget consultations as Minister of Finance to solicit support for his leadership bid.
45. Coderre's relationship with Group Everest
46. Martin's fundraiser/employee of Finance Jim Palmer
47. Martin's "blind trust" and his relationship with CSL.
48. Gerry Byrne requesting fundraising money be sent to his home address, with no records kept.
49. Gerry Byrne pouring bulk of ACOA money into his own riding.
50. Virginia Fontaine Addictions Foundation
51. Prime Minister’s former assistant, Denise Tremblay's huge travel expenses on Veterans Review and Appeal Board as Minister pleaded poverty to veterans' widows.
52. Chretien appointing Hon. Roger Simmons (former Trudeau minister convicted of income tax evasion) as Consul-General in Seattle
53. Chretien trying to bring hit-and-run driver Carignan back into caucus.
54. The RCMP is investigating possible fraud and bribery within Industry Canada, involving possible "overpayments" to recipients of federal business grants. The probe centres on the National Research Council, which hands out federal grants to small- and medium-sized businesses.
55. More than half a dozen bureaucrats have been "removed" from their jobs at a Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) in Toronto following a police investigation into projects funded under one of the department's grants and contributions programs
56. Revenue Minister Elinor Caplan called in the RCMP and ordered a sweeping security review after four tax department computers were stolen containing confidential personal information on more than 120,000 Canadians.
57. More than $7 billion stashed in Foundations by Finance Minister Paul Martin with little or no accountability
58. Dhaliwal overseing Richmond-airport-Vancouver transit line while being owner of the airport limousine service
59. Tom Rosser, former Dhaliwal advisor lobbying Natural Resources department and minister on environmental issues only months after leaving government.
60. $5.3 million GG northern travel
61. GG budget doubles in 5 years
62. Robert Thibault giving a grant as ACOA minister to a wharf and boatyard where his brother-in-law has a monopoly.
63. Royal LePage contract, which the government was forced to cancel in the wake of serious concerns being raised.
64. Shutting down the Somalia Inquiry
65. Home heating rebate, which was sent to prisoners and deceased.
66. Martin firing Bernard Dussault, Chief Actuary of CPP
67. Ethel Blondin-Andrew buys fur coat on government credit card
68. Chretien's imaginary homeless friend.
69. Liberal MP Rick Laliberte's extensive travel budget
70. Liberal Senator Thompson living in Mexico
71. Vendetta against former BDC President Francois Beaudoin
72. The flag give-away – which estimates suggest might now have cost $45 million instead of the promised $6 million, and reportedly involved fake invoices.
73. Gagliano's two week trip, at taxpayers' expense, for a two day event with the head of the Royal Canadian Mint and Maurizio Caruso.
74. Secretary of State for multiculturalism and status of women Sheila Finestone using government car (which junior ministers are only allowed to use for government business) to drive home to Montreal, which even Sheila Copps criticized. (Ottawa Citizen, May 22, 1994)
75. Liberal MP Jag Bhaduria’s hate mail to his former employers, wishing that they had been shot by killer Marc Lepine
76. Liberal MP Jag Bhaduria making false claims about his academic qualifications.
77. Paul Martin and Maria Minna attending fundraising dinner for group linked to Tamil Tigers in May 2000 (National Post, Sept. 8th, 2001).
78. David Anderson, as National Revenue Minister, suing the government for lost wages after being removed as IRB appointee by Conservative government seeking $454,000 from a deficit-ravaged federal treasury. (Vancouver Sun, July 24, 2004). Anderson eventually agreed to drop the suit.
79. David Anderson suggesting that the BC doesn't need extra House of Commons seats, because they wouldn't be worth much given the poor quality of most West Coast MPs. (Vancouver Sun, July 24, 2004)
80. A consultant on an executive interchange program persuaded Natural Resources to undertake a $700-million reorganization of its research facilities for which no business case had been made. The program was fast-tracked because he had developed a social relationship with the deputy minister. He was eventually charged with diverting $525,000 to a numbered company he controlled. (Globe and Mail, May 30, 2005)

*** Breathe *** Now on to the Martin government.

81. Raid on reporter Juliet O’Neill’s home by RCMP
82. Permanent Resident Cards
83. Judy Sgro going on vacation as cards became mandatory and landed immigrants were left stranded
84. Minister Frulla’s renovations
85. Pay raises for chiefs-of-staff in ministers offices, while spending is frozen for public service.
86. The government's changing numbers on how much money has gone to CSL
87. Lobbyists in Paul Martin’s transition team being allowed to return to lobbying immediately, after being involved in process of picking new cabinet and senior staff.
88. Minister Comuzzi's anti-Quebec comments
89. Martin government using closure after only six days in the House of Commons, followed by using time allocation in the Senate.
90. Problems with DND's contracts with Compaq Computers that may have cost taxpayers up to $159 million for work not performed.
91. Martin using government jets to tour the country campaigning before election, spending up to $1 million for air travel alone.
92. Martin's relationship with Earnscliffe
93. Questionable contracts to Earnscliffe
94. The appointment of former Liberal MLA Howard Sapers as the Correctional Investigator of Canada
95. Pierre Pettigrew's flip flopping on health care
96. David Dingwall's expenses as head of Royal Canadian Mint
97. Liberals planning to give David Dingwall a severance package after he resigned
98. The secret National Unity Fund reserve
99. Calling an early election after earlier promising first to get to the bottom of the sponsorship scandal
100. Martin suggesting changes to legislation and introducing bill that benefited CSL, despite concerns from his own Deputy Minister that he was in a conflict-of-interest (Ottawa Citizen, May 26, 2004)
101. $99 million Public Works contract that went to company overseen by Liberal fundraiser and future Senator Paul Massicotte (Montreal Gazette, June 26, 2004)
102. Parliamentary Secretary Dan McTeague’s 3-person, $224 trip to a Pizzeria
103. Immigration Minister Judy Sgro’s staff being allowed to stay on "extended travel" benefits, letting them bill taxpayers' for thousands of dollars in hotel rooms and meals, because they didn’t want to move from Toronto to Ottawa until after the election.
104. Correctional Service of Canada Commissioner Lucie McClung's travel expenses
105. Contracting irregularities on more than two dozen projects at DND worth tens of millions of dollars, showing over-billing, profit excesses, unauthorized additional work, lack of accounting records, spiralling cost overruns, etc. (Globe and Mail, July 14, 2004).
106. ACOA Minister Joe McGuire canceling ACOA loan and grant to ABL Industries Inc. because it would compete with company in his riding. (Fredericton Daily Gleaner, July 17, 2004).
107. Andy Mitchell's chief of staff’s $22,000 in expenses to commute to Ottawa (Toronto Star, August 2, 2004).
108. Andre Ouellet's travel and hospitality expenses at Canada Post.
109. Government delaying release of audit on Ouellet until after the election (Globe and Mail, July 31, 2004).
110. Martin's principle secretary Francis Fox's sister getting untendered contracts (The Province, July 27, 2004).
111. Continuing problems in advertising files at Public Works (Ottawa Sun, July 26, 2004).
112. A Liberal Party of Canada fundraising letter signed by Paul Martin, asking potential contributors to offer $7,000, $7,100 or $7,200 in contributions – far in excess of donation limits passed by the very same Liberal government
113. Liberal Senator Raymond Lavigne violating municipal bylaws. Municipality pursuing legal action against him. (Ottawa Citizen, August 19, 2004).
114. Spa Days for inmates approved by the Correctional Service of Canada, which on Aug. 21 invited inmates at the Grand Valley Institution for Women in Kitchener, Ont., to dabble with manicures, pedicures and aromatherapy, not to mention cups of tea served in fine china, all accompanied by a harp serenade. (National Post, September 9, 2004).
115. Five employees in the ''overwhelmed'' immigration section of Canada's embassy in Iran
have been fired over the past year after they each were caught breaching federal ethics rules (National Post, September 13, 2004).
116. Questionable contracts and spending from the Canada Investment and Savings group set up by Martin in 1996 (Globe and Mail, September 13, 2004)
117. Questionable contracting practices at Canada Information Office (The Hill Times, September 13, 2004).
118. A top Canadian diplomat based in China has resigned amid reports he is being investigated for allegedly taking bribes to help Chinese nationals enter Canada illegally. (Vancouver Sun, September 22, 2004).
119. Abuse of government credit cards by staff at Fisheries Department (CP Wire, September 24, 2004).
120. Canada's questionable hiring of the niece of Syria's foreign affairs minister to work at the embassy in Damascus (Globe and Mail, October 5, 2004)
121. Helene Scherrer using Challenger to fly to Banff during election to give partisan speech
122. Abuse of Challengers by Paul Martin and various ministers (eg. Andy Mitchell, Claudette Bradshaw)
123. Abuse of Challenger jets for political business instead of government business (Le Devoir, October 4, 2005)
124. Paul Martin taking Challenger jets to Liberal fundraisers
125. Challenger food bill of $508 per flight
126. Expenses during election filed by aide to Ralph Goodale
127. Questionable expenses during election filed by aides to Judy Sgro
128. Ongoing problems and safety concerns with the submarine program
129. Various federal departments reported in excess of $1.1 million in theft of computers in 2003, but the information is potentially more valuable than the hardware (Vancouver Sun, October 14, 2004).
130. According to the latest public-accounts-of-Canada reports for the period March 2004 and March 2005, over 700 laptops, desktops and central processing units went missing from 35 federal government agencies -- worth $6 million. (The Province, October 19, 2005)
131. Federal government has lost track of $587 million a year in EI overpayments and underpayments at the Department of Human Resources. (Ottawa Citizen, October 12, 2004). However, the government defends itself by stating that in fact it has only lost track of $25 million a year and collects the other overpayments. (Ottawa Citizen, October 13, 2004)
132. $133,000 grant to a Toronto film company that used classified ads to search for the "perfect" penis. (National Post, October 14, 2004).
133. Man convicted of fraud against government hired to teach ethics course to public servants (National Post, October 20, 2004).
134. Public Works selling confiscated grow-op equipment to drug traffickers. (National Post, October 21, 2004).
135. Pressure by Liberal MPs and ministers on ACOA to make funding decisions based on politics (New Brunswick Telegraph Journal, October 25, 2004).
136. Paul Martin's Director of Communications Scott Reid insulting Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador (Toronto Star, October 28, 2004)
137. The Martin government spent $127,223 on a poll last February testing ways to diffuse negative reaction to the bombshell auditor-general's report -- which included the finding the Liberals ignored their own rules prohibiting the use of tax dollars on partisan polls (Vancouver Sun, November 8, 2004).
138. Judy Sgro's campaign volunteer (a stripper) getting ministerial permit
139. Sgro's senior policy advisor going to strip club to meet with owner to discuss bringing more strippers into Canada. (National Post, November 25, 2004). Subsequent revelations indicate that he went to at least one other strip club to conduct similar meetings (Toronto Sun, December 7, 2004)
140. Sgro giving out details of private immigration files, violating Privacy Act
141. Allegations that Sgro broke the elections law in failing to properly identify the source of a campaign contribution. (Toronto Star, December 8, 2004).
142. Revelations that the program to bring in foreign exotic dancers was created under pressure from organized crime (National Post, December 18, 2004)
143. Irwin Cotler appointing his former chief-of-staff to federal court (National Post, November 23, 2004).
144. Heritage Minister Liza Frulla giving grant to magazine that put her on the cover and made her honourary president (Ottawa Citizen, November 25, 2004)
145. Despite promising an end to cronyism and patronage, Martin appointing Liberal MP John Harvard as Lt-Governor of Manitoba, in order to get him to step aside for "star" candidate Glen Murray.
146. Despite promising an end to cronyism and patronage, Martin appointing Liberal MP Yvon Charbonneau to UNESCO, in order to get him to step aside for Martin crony Pablo Rodriguez.
147. Despite promising an end to cronyism and patronage, Martin appointing former Liberal MP
Karen Kraft-Sloan as Ambassador for the Environment. (Department of Foreign Affairs Press Release, February 16, 2005).
148. Despite promising an end to cronyism and patronage, Martin appointing defeated Liberal candidate Dave Haggard as the chair of a newly created Advisory Committee on Apprenticeship. (OIC 2005-0001)
149. Despite promising an end to cronyism and patronage, Martin appointed his friend Dennis Dawson to the Senate
150. Despite promising an end to cronyism and patronage, Martin appointed his former Principal Secretary Francis Fox to the Senate
151. Despite promising an end to cronyism and patronage, Martin appointed disgraced former cabinet minister Art Eggleton to the Senate
152. Martin and his wife complaining about having to live in 24 Sussex (Edmonton Journal, November 17, 2004)
153. Millennium Bureau spending done with same lack of controls and oversight of sponsorship program
154. The RCMP has charged a senior Immigration Canada manager and four accomplices in an alleged bribes-for-status scheme in which Arab immigrants paid up to $25,000 to have their claims fast-tracked and approved (National Post, December 17, 2004)
155. Making widows of RCMP officers killed in the line of duty pay for their husbands' funerals (Under pressure from the Conservative Party, the government reversed this policy)
156. Martin patronage-appointee Jim Walsh breaking ethics guidelines and attending Liberal Christmas Party (St. John’s Telegram, January 20, 2005).
157. Port authority losing more than $60,000 in public funds on the stock market. When Central Cape Breton Community Ventures took over the port in Iona in 2000, the private agency deposited only $5,000 of the $245,000 it received from Transport Canada into a designated bank account. The federal funding was meant to cover the port's maintenance, insurance and professional services costs (Chronicle-Herald, January 31, 2005).
158. Canadian flag lapel pins being made in China. Only under pressure, Scott Brison flip flops and agrees to have them made in Canada again.
159. Questionable dealings around the privatization of the Digby Wharf, which even Liberal MP Robert Thibault wants the RCMP to investigate (Chronicle-Herald, February 10, 2005).
160. Adrienne Clarkson spending $17,500 to evaluate cleaning at Rideau Hall (Ottawa Sun, February 19, 2005)
161. Martin patronage appointee Glen Murray breaking ethics guidelines and attending Liberal Convention as delegate
162. Martin ignoring parliamentary committee and appointing Glen Murray as chair of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
163. Marlene Jennings, the Parliamentary Secretary for Canada-U.S. relations, making anti-American remarks
164. Government knowing about details of torture and murder of Zahra Kazemi back in November and still sending ambassador back to Iran
165. Government knowing about details of torture and murder of Zahra Kazemi back in November but doing nothing
166. Tens of thousands of dollars were spent on questionable acquisitions at CFB Borden (Ottawa Sun, April 18, 2005).
167. Joe Volpe keeping stripper visa program operating, despite having promised to shut it down (CTV.ca, March 5, 2005)
168. Jean Lapierre acting as lobbyist without registering
169. Joe Volpe trying to intimidating Sikh community
170. In the spring of 2003, the RCMP investigated allegations that Liberal MP Gurbax Malhi had requested favours and financial support for Paul Martin's 2003 leadership campaign in exchange for helping Indian nationals get these temporary resident permits (Globe and Mail, March 10, 2005).
171. Liberals spending $443,237 to change the name Passport Office to Passport Canada (Montreal Gazette, April 21, 2005).
172. Ken Dryden's chief of staff charged with careless driving (Ottawa Citizen, March 22, 2005)
173. Liberals trying to buy off Conservative MPs with offers of patronage positions
174. Liberals handling of the submarine program
175. Public Service Integrity Officer's travel expenses (Ottawa Sun, May 4, 2005)
176. Liberal Senator Michel Biron going to hearing to support killer Karla Homolka (CTV News, June 9, 2005)
177. Public Works contract watchdog Consulting and Audit Canada violating contracting rules (Toronto Star, July 4, 2005)
178. Technology Partnerships Canada rules being violated to pay lobbyists (Globe and Mail, June 24, 2005)
179. Former Indian and Northern Affairs Minister Robert Nault is working as a paid lobbyist for Nelson House First Nation in what some allege is an apparent violation of a federal code of conduct. Among the federal departments Nault is lobbying is the Indian and Northern Affairs department he headed until December 2003, according to a lobbying report Nault filed with the federal government. Nault registered as a lobbyist for Nelson House, now known as Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation, on July 18, 2005 -- one year and seven months after leaving his cabinet post. Under the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders, Nault is barred from working for any entity with which his department had "direct and significant official dealings" for two years after leaving office. He is also barred for two years from lobbying his former department or any of his former cabinet colleagues (Winnipeg Free Press, September 14, 2005)
180. According to documents obtained by the Globe and Mail, Pierre Pettigrew billed Canadian taxpayers for $10,000 for trips for his driver in 2001 and 2002. Pettigrew took his driver to South America and Europe, even though the driver didn’t do any driving on the trips. (Globe and Mail, September 14, 2005)
181. Joe Volpe's questionable hospitality expenses (Globe and Mail, September 21, 2005)
182. According to media reports, Industry Canada has frozen federal financing for research projects by an Ontario biotechnology firm pending the outcome of an investigation into the company's agreement to pay $350,000 in lobbying "success" fees to former Liberal cabinet minister David Dingwall. Such contingency fee payments violate Technology Partnership Canada rules. (Globe and Mail, September 23, 2005)
183. Expenses of chairman of the Royal Canadian Mint Emmanuel Triassi, who also approved David Dingwall's expenses (Globe and Mail, October 4, 2005)
184. Last week, Public Works was also silent on details of another case involving forensic accounting. Government accounts published on Thursday showed a department employee had
embezzled $3.45 million from Public Works office in Koblenz, Germany. Even though the employee was convicted and jailed in Germany, Public Works will not name him or give any details of the crime (Ottawa Citizen, October 4, 2005)
185. The federal government inadvertently revealed yesterday that it is conducting a large-scale forensic accounting probe into "possibly criminal matters" when it published details of a contract intended for a Quebec accounting firm. The notice awarding a $2-million contract for forensic accounting services was published on the government's tendering website, MERX. It gave notice that Consulting and Audit Canada was planning to award the sole-source contract to Leclerc Juricomptable, a Quebec City firm specializing in forensic work and litigation support. The contract award notice said the work had to be sole-sourced to Leclerc because it is "not in the public interest to jeopardize the current investment in the investigation or to significantly increase the risk to a successful completion of the investigation into possibly criminal matters." A spokesman for the Department of PublicWorks and Government Services said yesterday that the notice was published "prematurely" and would be withdrawn last night. He could not say, however, what is under investigation, but said the contract was not tied to another scandal that has kept Quebec forensic accountants busy over the past years. "It's not related to sponsorship or Gomery, that I can tell you," said spokesman Pierre Teotonio (Ottawa Citizen, October 4, 2005). It was subsequently revealed that the department involved was CIDA (CP Wire, October 4, 2005)
186. Questions about campaign funds from Raymond Chan's campaign going to his companies (Vancouver Sun, October 7, 2005)
187. Questions about a possible conflict-of-interest between Chan's activities as minister on behalf of possible business associates (Vancouver Sun, October 7, 2005)
188. Questions about the report that Chan filed with the Ethics Commissioner (Vancouver Sun, October 7, 2005)
189. Government giving out contract that specifies no paper trail to be left in government offices (Vancouver Province, October 11, 2005)
190. Questionable travel expenses at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (CP, October 16, 2005)
191. Two employees at DFO fired for making fraudulent travel claims (CP, The Province, October 18, 2005).
192. Lobbyist registrar Michael Nelson has launched investigations of four people for eight possible breaches of the ethics guidelines for lobbyists, the first such investigations ever launched under the code. (Globe and Mail, October 18, 2005)
193. According to media reports, the federal government has terminated two contracts with a consulting firm that used to be run by Liberal MP David Smith and now run by his wife, following a forensic audit of the contracting practices at a federal agency (Globe and Mail, October 19, 2005)
194. ATI requests by prisoners for information on prison system and guards, when information is actually disclosed
195. Liberal candidate Richard Mahoney lobbying for satellite radio company for a month before registering (Ottawa Citizen, October 19, 2005)
196. Delays and ballooning costs mean a giant software project at National Defence will eclipse its original budget and won't meet its goals until 2011 -- if at all. An internal audit obtained by Canadian Press raises red flags about a new system designed to streamline computer tracking of military inventory and purchases. MASIS -- or Materiel Acquisition Support Information System -- started in 1997 as a $147-million undertaking. What began as a focused effort to cover a single equipment category in each of the navy, army and air force soon mushroomed. By
2003, Defence officials estimated MASIS would be in place by 2006 at a cost of $325 million, more than twice its forecast budget. A full introduction of the complex software has now been extended to 2011. The heavily censored May 2005 internal audit, released under the Access to
Information Act, catalogues a litany of "revised planned milestones.'' "The prime contract has been amended six times, each time increasing amounts for professional service fees,'' it says. (CP, The Record, October 24, 2005)
197. Hospitality and travel expenses of executives at CMHC (Journal de Montreal, October 24, 2005)
198. Questions about Squamish land deal lease (The Province, October 26, 2005)
199. Liberals handling of tainted water at Kashechewan First Nation

And a partridge in a pear tree!!!

Letters to the editor: Why the atomic bombing of Japan was justified

2005-11-10T18:00:00.000-05:00

Over the months and years, I have written numerous letters to various newspapers for consideration.

Some of these attack the newspaper's view on certain topics, and some defend.
Some have replies from other dissenting readers.

Topics range from history (i.e. was the atomic bombing of Japan justified?) to culture, to religion.

The first letter deals with whether or not the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified.
My stance is this: War is a horrible thing - it is HELL. Unfortunately, it is unavoidable and will always be part of the human condition - and in some cases, it is necessary to use force to prevent the victory of tyranny, as was the case in WWI and WW2.

In this time of Remembrance, please remember the debt of gratitude we all owe to the generations before us who fought, bled, and died for our freedom and our liberty.

Remember also the One who bled and died to purchase lasting freedom and emancipation for our very souls.

Re: The A-Bomb Debate, letters, Aug. 8

As Mr. Taylor points out, it is sad that those who agree with the decision to use the A-bombs are often forced into the defensive.
It is also quite appalling that so many of our allegedly-intelligent citizens (including some members of our institutions of higher learning) are so poorly-schooled in the subject of history.

Mr. Freed quotes various American Generals, Admirals, former Presidents, etc. as support for the contention that the use of the bombs was unnecessary, because “the Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.” Undoubtedly, the Japanese were already defeated by August 1945 – however, were they really ready to surrender?
Considering that they fought to the last man in Iwo Jima, their bushido culture causing even the civilians to jump to their deaths rather than surrender, how is it that in this day and age, with the wealth of historical knowledge that we have, people can still subscribe to the fantasy that the Japanese would have surrendered their home islands without a fight, had the bombs not been dropped?

Furthermore, while we’re on the subject of barbarity, my question to Dr. Jacob Pendergrast is this: What about the 300,000-450,000 Chinese massacred by the Japanese in the Rape of Nanking? Even using the upper limits of the estimates, the combined toll of the two bombs did not exceed the numbers killed in Nanking, not to mention the fact that the Chinese did not simply experience quick deaths – they were subjected to biochemical warfare experiments at the hands of the infamous Unit 731; the women were often brutally raped – simply put, the Japanese soldiers did not view us Chinese as human at all.
Where is the outrage towards this “arrogant and callous” behaviour? Surely, even the most cloistered of ivory tower intellectuals should have some knowledge of the events that led up to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Why the war in Iraq is not a failure:

2005-11-01T16:33:00.000-05:00

Reading reports from the media, one often gets the impression that the war in Iraq is an abject failure, and a quagmire.

While I will agree to the extent that the war could have been prosecuted better, and a better plan for maintaining peace implemented, I propose that the rest of the arguments of the naysayers and anti-war types, are nothing but falsehoods and spin, ignoring important changes and aspects of reality.

Consider the following:

· Prior to the Iraq War, no one was sure what the status of WMDs was under Saddam Hussein. Granted, we invaded and found nothing, but now we know for sure that there are no WMDs there; which is not to say that they were never there – remember that every military intelligence agency in the free world believed Iraq had them, and knew that Saddam wanted them, not to mention that the build up to the war took so long that Iraq had plenty of opportunities to move their weapons to neighbouring Syria (even today, numerous insurgents cross back and forth from the Syrian border).

· The invasion of Iraq showed the Middle East that the U.S. and its allies aren’t bluffing: Cross the line, and we WILL hit you. This had the happy benefit of removing any uncertainty about the veracity of U.S. posturing and threats, providing a strong deterrent to any aspiring dictators in the area (witness how quickly Syrian strongman Assad came to heel)

· Following from the above, because America showed itself to be truly committed to spreading democracy, nascent democratic movements around the region received a shot in the arm, and renewed courage and will. This didn’t always translate into democratization and liberalization (i.e. Iran), but it cannot be discounted.

· The election in Iraq: Regardless of your views on the war, one must agree that to see previously-oppressed peoples come out in force, and reject the terrorists’ ideals (terrorists who claim to represent the people) via a peaceful election, is a beautiful thing to behold. Not only this, but it set off a flurry of action in the region, with elections being held in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, etc. This directly contradicts those so-called intellectuals who claimed that Arabs wouldn’t embrace democracy (or that they aren’t advanced enough to appreciate it). Apologists for dictatorships and tyranny probably don’t like the taste of foot in their mouths, but they got it anyway.

· Iraq is on the road to recovery – despite the obstacles (such as poor power generation and stability, as well as a lack of working infrastructure), Iraq’s economy is on the mend. Airlines are flying into Baghdad, and the people are beginning to enjoy the fruits of their work, rather than seeing it squandered at the lavish palaces, or on the expensive pursuits of the Hussein thugs.

· Although there is an insurgency in Iraq that is giving trouble to the Iraqi police and army (as well as coalition forces), the evidence is there that they will not last. Witness reports of Sunni militias protecting their Shiite countrymen in the face of terrorist attacks seeking to foment sectarian violence. Witness the reports of regular Iraqis fighting the terrorists. Witness reports of nationalist Iraqis fighting against the foreign jihadists. Not only this, but witness the increasingly capable Iraqi Army and police units. The courage of these guardians of the peace is something to behold.

· Finally, the insurgency itself, particularly the foreign Islamist/Jihadist element, far from strengthening the worldwide terrorist network, is presenting a drain on resources that would otherwise be used to carry out attacks against civilians around the world. For now, they too are bogged down in Iraq, fighting against the strongest military in the world, and facing the truth that they do not represent the interests of the Iraqi people. The fact that the latest attacks on Western populations have been relatively weak (contrasting with the massive 9/11, Bali 2002, and Madrid attacks) shows that the strategy is working; some attacks will always slip through, but these are proving to be relatively weak.

The above points, and the fact that Zarqawi, bin Laden, and their band of thugs are forced to hide in caves, cut off from the world except for the occasional video (which are fast becoming so incredible as to be objects of mockery) – if they are alive at all – should be a comfort to all who value freedom. We are winning, and if we hold the course, we will prevail.

Why I support the war in Iraq, and the War on Terrorism

2005-11-01T16:11:00.000-05:00

As Canadians (and in general, non-Americans), we have had a tendency to bash on Americans and American initiatives whenever we have the chance. This has been par for the course since the era of Trudeaupia (or any period since we decided Quebec would decide what shape our foreign policy takes), though it seems to have intensified in recent years.

As a Canadian, I am stating here, unequivocally: I support the United States of America, and their initiatives in Iraq, in Afghanistan, protecting Israel, etc.

Why?

Let us look at the news for the past week.

Perhaps the latest in the spate of natural disasters we've faced this year, has been the earthquake that ripped apart regions of Pakistan, India, and the Kashmir (the object of contention between the two aforementioned neighbours).
In the face of this, aid has been directed to the region by numerous foreign contributors. It would appear that this would be the best time to lay down arms and help one another (regardless of nationality or religion) through this difficult time.

Not so, say various militant Islamist terror groups. To underscore the point, on Saturday, the eve of Diwali the Hindu festival of lights, terrorists detonated bombs in New Dehli, killing 61 and maiming more than 200. Who claims responsibility?

According to the National Post (Oct. 31, A14):

A man saying he represented a militant group, Islamic Inquilab Mahaz ("Front for Islamic Uprising") claimed responsibility for the bombings, in a call to the Kashmir News Service. The little-known group is thought to be tied to the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, the most feared militant group in Kashmir.

The article goes on to say that the reason for the attack was for the group to rebuff claims that the earthquake and Indian security forces had drained the organization's ranks.

How's this for civilized? For decent? For human?

Let's move on.

In Indonesia, the families of 3 highschool girls are mourning. Why?
Because the girls were ambushed by six black-clad men in masks as they were walking home from school.
What crime did they commit?
Apparently, they were Christians (they had been walking home from the Central Sulawesi Christian high school).

The aftermath?

Three headless bodies of the 16- to 18-year olds, still dressed in their uniforms, left to rot at the site of the attack, and their heads tossed at separate locations.
The sole survivor, Nofiana Malewa, is in a police hospital, recovering from a machete wound to the face, and the back of her head.

Six cowards - animals each of them - took it upon themselves to ambush 4 defenseless schoolgirls. And sadly, this is not the exception - similar atrocities and acts of cowardice play themselves out daily, often targeting women (Islamic or otherwise), with the violence ranging from honour killings, stonings, attacks to women's faces with acid, female genital mutilation, etc. The list of ways that fanatical Islamists find to assault, harm, humiliate, and kill women (in many cases, fellow Muslims) is a testament to their brutality; their inhumanity.

And how about the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who publicly called for the sovereign and democratic state of Israel to be "wiped off the map?" This took place at a national summit revealingly themed "A World without Zionism" (remember: in the eyes of many Arabs and Muslims, "Zionism" is to be equated with "existence of Israel", and "acceptable compromise" consists of "throwing the Jews into the sea").

Kofi Annan, the befuddled Secretary-General of the impotent and scandal-plagued U.N., added much comic relief to many, by surmising that perhaps, Mahmoud only meant that his map of Israel was dirty, and needed to be cleaned.
Pardon me for not swallowing this type of idiocy, but these sentiments, and the UN's "shining" record at preventing nuclear arms proliferation (See North Korea, India, Pakistan, etc.) don't exactly fill me with confidence, given Iran's stated objective to become nuclear-capable.

And of course, who could forget the continued violence that is perpetrated by the Hamas and other terror groups who claim to seek liberation from Israel? This pattern has been repeated numerous times, as Israel makes concessions and commits itself to bringing peace by acquiescing to Palestinian demands, only to find itself the target of continued violence, and further demands by gun-wielding thugs who do not hesitate to blow up buses full of women and children.
Even now, with a nascent Palestinian state, Hamas and other groups continue to target Israeli civilians (Jewish or otherwise) with rocket attacks, bombings, etc.
If only they would focus the energy they spend hating the Jews, into positive and constructive endeavours such as rebuilding the infrastructure and economy in Gaza, the so-called Palestinian nation would find hope and prosperity.
Unfortunately, it is much easier to continue to blame “Israeli oppressor” and spill blood on the streets, than to actually build something.

These issues are symptoms of a worldwide plight - that of militant Islamism, particularly the violent, ultra-conservative sect known as Wahabbism/Salafism that originated out of Saudi Arabia.

However, to blame Islamists alone would be fallacious. Theirs is only a strain of that virulent disease known as terrorism, which happens to be the most prominent one facing our world today. Witness the terrorism of the Tamil Tigers (LTTE), who continue to raise funds in Canada. Witness the continued deeds of terrorism in places like Colombia (the Marxist FARC), and numerous others.
The foe here is terrorism itself. This will not be easy; it should be noted that terrorism has existed for a long time (one could argue that the French Revolution was the first time it became a clearly-acknowledged method to pursue goals).
The only way to win is to show those who would use terror, that there is a consequence for their actions. The only way to win is to strike fear into their hearts, so that they will know that terrorism only brings them ruin. This can only be accomplished by meeting them on the battlefield. Extend the olive branch, but if they choose not to take it, fix your bayonets. You don’t win battles by unfurling the white flag as soon as things get tough.
The message we must bring to anyone who thinks that terror will help them achieve their goals is simple: It won’t.

We must deter those who would seek to use aggression against the innocent and unarmed. If this requires our own aggression, so be it. This means taking to the arena in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Iran, in Indonesia, in Sri Lanka, in the Middle East, in Central America, etc.
Civilization needs soldiers to defend it. To believe anything else is both naïve and ignorant.

You are with us, or you are against us.
Either you want freedom and civilization to survive, or you do not.
The choice is yours.

Who am I politically?

2005-10-11T22:18:00.000-04:00

Here's a little test to see where you are politically.
http://www.okcupid.com/politics

Incidentally, for my law:
"I would dictate that... Adults who do not contribute to society for any reason other than natural disability, debilitating sickness or old age will not be eligible for welfare or any social spending."
—JL from Toronto, ON

You are a
Social Conservative
(38% permissive)

and an...
Economic Conservative
(80% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Republican

Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

Why I will not support the Palestinian cause

2005-09-26T00:39:00.000-04:00

The following is an article detailing the repressive and backwards thinking that pervades much of the Muslim world (apologies in advance to those Muslims who abhor violence against women and non-believers).
While the world (led the U.N.) generally enjoys using every opportunity to remind us about how the Israelis are oppressing the Palestinians and crushing their hopes (such as reporting on the false, never-happened non-event that was the Jenin "Massacre"), causing despair, sowing poverty (despite the fact that the Gaza and West Bank, so-called Palestinian areas, have never been as prosperous as they were while under Israeli control), they generally tend to ignore any news reports of Palestinian instigations and atrocities (usually carried out by terrorists like Hamas but occasionally, as in this case, by Palestinian civilians) against Israelis, and even fellow Palestinians (counted among the Palestinian population are numerous groups, including Christians).

Palestinians have time and again showed that they cannot rule themselves - ever since Israel allowed the Palestinians to have limited autonomy, what had been a bustling economy has plummeted. Crime and unemployment abound, while hope is in short supply (ensuring that Hamas and their fellow crazies have a large, steady pool of young, unemployed and frustrated men from which to draw suicide bombers and terrorists). Ever since Arafat's death, the West has waited and hoped that there would be some improvement in the situation. Alas, it has not been so - the Palestinian "leadership", namely the Palestinian Authority, continues to be corrupt, incompetent, and underequipped to deal with security challenges and governance concerns (this despite generous foreign aid from abroad, most of which goes into the wrong pockets).

There are numerous issues that the Palestinian people must come to grips with, and resolve before any improvement will come to the Gazan situation.
As the following article will show, the rule of law continues to be nonexistent, with a fair and free judicial system being nothing but a wish (particularly if you are not a Muslim). Without changes like a good system of law, accountability and transparency, and cultural changes (such as a stop to the demonizing and blaming of the Jews for Palestinian-made, Palestinian woes).

As a Christian, and as a person, I for one will not be supporting the Palestinian cause in any way, shape or form, nor will I consider it legitimate, until the Palestinians show themselves capable of civility and human decency. If the below article is any indication, it appears that I will not be supporting their cause for quite some time.

The article can be found at: http://jewishworldreview.com/0905/pipes2005_09_13.php3

World silent after Muslim gang attacks ‘Palestinian’ Christian village

By Daniel Pipes

It ain't just the Jews, folks.

A sustained assault on Arab Christians has led to their fleeing the birthplace of Christianity. The likely result will be reduced to empty church buildings and a congregation-less hierarchy with no flock

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | What some observers are calling a pogrom took place near Ramallah, West Bank, on the night of Sep. 3-4. That's when fifteen Muslim youths from one village, Dair Jarir, rampaged against Taybeh, a neighboring all-Christian village of 1,500 people.

The reason for the assault? A Muslim woman from Dair Jarir, Hiyam Ajaj, 23, fell in love with her Christian boss, Mehdi Khouriyye, owner of a tailor shop in Taybeh. The couple maintained a clandestine two-year affair and she became pregnant in about March 2005. When her family learned of her condition, it murdered her. That was on about Sep. 1; unsatisfied even with this "honor killing" — for Islamic law strictly forbids non-Muslim males to have sexual relations with Muslim females — the Ajaj men sought vengeance against Khouriyye and his family.

They took it two days later in an assault on Taybeh. The Ajajs and their friends broke into houses and stole furniture, jewelry, and electrical appliances. They threw Molotov cocktails at some buildings and poured kerosene on others, then torched them. The damage included at least 16 houses, some stores, a farm, and a gas station. The assailants vandalized cars, looted extensively, and destroyed a statue of the Virgin Mary.

"It was like a war," one Taybeh resident told The Jerusalem Post. Hours passed before the Palestinian Authority security and fire services arrived. The fifteen assailants spent only a few hours in police detention, then were released. As for Khouriyye, the Palestinian police arrested him, kept him jail, and (his family says) have repeatedly beat him.

As the news service Adnkronos International notes, for Palestinian Christians "the fact that the Muslim aggressors have been released while the Christian tailor-shop owner is still being held, at best symbolizes the PA's indifference to the plight of Palestinian Christians, at worst shows it is taking sides against them."

A cousin, Suleiman Khouriyye, pointed to his burned house. "They did this because we're Christians. They did this because we are the weaker ones." The Khouriyyes and others recall the assailants shouting Allahu Akbar and anti-Christian slogans: "Burn the infidels, burn the Crusaders." To which, an unrepentant cousin of Hiyam Ajaj replied, "We burned their houses because they dishonored our family, not because they are Christians."

This assault fits a larger pattern. According to the Catholic Custodian of the Holy Land, Pierbattista Pizzaballa, Christians in the Bethlehem region alone have suffered 93 cases of injustice in 2000-04. In the worst of these, in 2002, Muslims murdered the two Amre sisters, 17 and 19 years old, whom they called prostitutes. A post-mortem, however, showed the teenagers to have been virgins — and to have been tortured on their genitals.

"Almost every day — I repeat, almost every day — our communities are harassed by the Islamic extremists in these regions," Pizzaballa says. "And if it's not the members of Hamas or Islamic Jihad, there are clashes with … the Palestinian Authority." In addition to the Islamists, a "Muslim land mafia" is said to operate. With PA complicity. it threatens Christian land and house owners, often succeeding to compel them to abandon their properties.

The campaign of persecution has succeeded. Even as the Christian population of Israel grows, that of the Palestinian Authority shrinks precipitously. Bethlehem and Nazareth, historic Christian towns for nearly two millennia, are now primarily Muslim. In 1922, Christians outnumbered Muslims in Jerusalem; today, Christians amount to a mere 2 percent of that city's population.

"Is Christian life liable to be reduced to empty church buildings and a congregation-less hierarchy with no flock in the birthplace of Christianity?" So asks Daphne Tsimhoni in the Middle East Quarterly. It is hard to see what will prevent that ghost-like future from coming into existence.

One factor that could help prevent this dismal outcome would be for mainline Protestant churches to speak out against Palestinian Muslims for tormenting and expelling Palestinian Christians. To date, unfortunately, the Episcopalian, Evangelical Lutheran, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches, as well as the United Church of Christ, have ignored the problem.

Instead, they pursue the self-indulgent path of venting moral outrage against the Israeli bystander and even withdrawing their investment funds from it. As they obsess with Israel but stay silent about Christianity dying in its birthplace one wonders what it will take to awaken them.

Floods of discontent Pt. 2

2005-09-06T02:00:00.000-04:00

¹ This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD : ² "Go down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my message." ³ So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel. ⁴ But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him. (Jeremiah 18:1-4)

In times of disaster, people will find their thoughts drifting towards the divine.
Some will wonder "Where is God?" or "Why would God do this?"
Others will thank God for their survival, or that of their family, or for any number of blessings in the face of adversity.

Far be it for me to speak for God, but I believe that with God, there are no accidents; no coincidences. Everything that happens, happens for a reason.
The prophet Jeremiah, speaking on behalf of the Lord, warned his fellow Israelites to forsake their sinful ways and come back to the path of the one true God.
He brought warnings of what would happen if they continued in their stubborn ways

¹¹ "Now therefore say to the people of Judah and those living in Jerusalem, 'This is what the LORD says: Look! I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan against you. So turn from your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and your actions.' ¹² But they will reply, 'It's no use. We will continue with our own plans; each of us will follow the stubbornness of his evil heart.' " (Jeremiah 18:11-12)

Far be it for me to claim to speak on behalf of God (beyond what He has said Himself in His Word), but I believe that it is no accident that the worst-hit area this time, is New Orleans.
New Orleans has made a reputation of being a city of loose morals, cheap thrills, and devotion to pleasure. Displays such as the "Mardi Gras" and "Southern Decadence" trumpet and celebrate depravity and irresponsibility (Southern Decadence is dedicated to providing "New Orleans Gay Free for All", emphasizing easy hookups for "under the covers action" - source: http://pridespecialty.com/southerndecadence.html)
During the December 26 Tsunami, one of the worst-ravaged areas was Phuket, Thailand. Phuket had a reputation as being the capital of the Asian sex trade.

Coincidence?

I don't think so.

Undoubtedly, among those reading this, there are probably some who are rolling their eyes at this "religious fundamentalist zealot" for this crazy talk. I am aware that what I am saying here is not a popular perspective, and that many would balk at some morally-based cause/effect argument. Nonetheless, it is something to consider, given that society seems to keep finding a new depth to sink to.
This unpopular viewpoint, articulated by some Christian thinkers (no, that is not an oxymoron, no matter what some people say) and writers, and the fiery and venomous response it has elicited, brings to mind the plight of Jeremiah as he tried to prod the Israelites back onto the path with God.

¹⁸ They said, "Come, let's make plans against Jeremiah; for the teaching of the law by the priest will not be lost, nor will counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophets. So come, let's attack him with our tongues and pay no attention to anything he says." (Jeremiah 18:18)

Regardless of your political or religious stripe, I implore you: do consider these events.
And do know that there is a loving God, aching to be able to cleanse and forgive any sin or wrongdoing.
He wants us to rejoin His path - sometimes, He needs to rely on extraordinary events and happenstance to get our attention.

For those who would feel that I am an insensitive and ignorant boor to suggest that, somehow, these victims deserved their fate, I submit to you the following:

²³for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)

and

²³For the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23a)

None of us is righteous or innocent, except by the cleansing of Christ Jesus.
As such, there is not one of us who does not deserve death, but those who have trusted in Him to deliver us from spiritual (not physical) death.
Not just this, but remember Whose clay this entire universe is - we are only part of the creation - we are not the Potter. We are not the ones in control here, nor are we in any position to dictate to God what He should do with His creation.

Floods of discontent Pt. 1

2005-09-06T01:42:00.000-04:00

This week, one thing has dominated headlines everywhere:

The destruction and devastation wrought upon New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina.

Not only that, but the central point seems to be castigation and vilification of the Bush Administration for it's allegedly incompetent handling of this catastrophe.

Bear in mind that in times of disaster, relief and help never comes fast enough, but this is simply ridiculous. Some of the more imaginative have gone so far as to blame the Bush regime for the hurricane, on account of the fact that the U.S. did not sign the Kyoto accord (which they felt released the biggest polluters from responsibility - namely India and China) and despite the fact that hurricanes have actually decreased in frequency this past century.

I would prefer not to launch into political posturing and sabre-rattling in a time when people are suffering and need help, but this is simply unacceptable.
President Bush has been more gracious than has been warranted with his detractors, going so far as to admit that the relief efforts thus far are "not acceptable" (when was the last time Paul Martin apologized for his numerous incompetent bunglings?) - nonetheless, this graciousness has not been replied in kind.
Instead, we have folks like Kanye West going off on tangents to lash out at the government, and race-riot inciters like Rev. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton et al, banging the racism drum for all it's worth, alleging that the U.S. government is deliberately slowing it's efforts on account of the black populace in New Orleans.
This shameless, boorish, and crass display, sadly, takes the focus away from those who should be the focus right now:

The men, women and children who are awaiting evacuation, struggling to survive in fetid and disgusting conditions, with little but hope to sustain them.

Unfortunately, there are some who will miss no opportunity, no opening, to lash out at their political foes, even at the expense of their humanity and decency, to promote an agenda of victimhood and blame-shifting.
Nevermind that there were numerous warnings for the residents of NOLA to evacuate, prior to the hurricane - I don't care if you don't have a car: if a hurricane is bearing down on your hometown, common sense would dictate that it's time to get out of dodge, anyway you can (even by foot).
Quit blaming the government (they're not responsible for doling out common sense or free rides, contrary to popular opinion) or oppression, or whatever, and roll up your sleeves!

The Chinese, the Koreans, the Japanese, the Jews, etc. - there is no minority that has not faced challenges and oppression from the race barrier of the past (and even the more subtle one today). Yet, they are not complaining to the degree that blacks have been (and are).
The underachiever status of North American blacks has not been helped by the behaviour by society (particularly white liberals), which has tended to explain away the bad behaviour with so-called "root causes" (usual suspects like poverty, lack of education, systemic discrimination etc.).
To this, the obvious retort is: look at the other ethnic groups that have succeeded in spite of these barriers, through discipline and hard work.
When is the last time you heard Chinese folks complaining about poverty, and how it causes them to commit crimes?
Simply put, it is time for white folks to quit making excuses for any ethnic group, and expect them to be mature and capable enough to pull their own weight, and solve their problems.
To do so, betrays a soft-bigotry that implies ethnics simply cannot succeed or survive without outside help - a far more pervasive and subversive bigotry than any other.

Black North Americans are at a crossroads.
In a time when TV footage and news reports show predominantly black mobs looting, rioting, shooting at rescuers, threatening fellow victims, raping women victims, etc., or when (closer to home in Toronto) news reports deliver a steady barrage of shooting reports, the members of the black community face 2 choices:

1) Continue to blame the white oppressor for all misfortune and misdeeds - continue playing the victim/race card, and keep waiting for the handouts, instead of getting educated, and building success. Continue to make idols and role models from individuals like Fifty Cent or any number of gangster rappers. Continue to worship the gangsta culture of death, violence, and hatred.

2) Confront the problem of the victimhood/oppressed minority culture. Confront the violence, disrespect for authority, and materialist excess espoused by popular hiphop/rap culture. Create positive role models (Bill Cosby, Condoleeza Rice, and Colin Powell are prominent examples) for young black men and women to look up to and follow.

Likewise, society has 2 choices:

1) Continue to baby ethnic groups under the auspices of "multiculturalism" - continue to make excuses for their bad behaviour and seeming inability to rise above the circumstances.

2) Hold these groups accountable - expect them to be capable of handling criticism, and capable of making the right changes. Respect them enough to treat them as mature and intelligent people, instead of endlessly coddling them.

These choices, between reform, and the status quo, are as applicable in Canada as in the U.S.
They are also applicable to any minority group - ethnic or religious.

While we're on the topic of Canada, we in Canada, fortunate to have been spared such a fate, have shown a degree of smugness about the U.S. response. How quickly we forget about the Albertan floods of the past year, and the laboured response by our own government - how quick we are to forget our own glass house before casting stones. Or how about the pitiful escapade of our DART team during the tsunami (if you recall, we had to rent cargo planes from the Ukraine to move our troops and equipment to the hotzones).
Now is not the time to exacerbate the strained relationship between us and our neighbour (who happens to be our largest customer, trading partner, and security partner) over issues like the Iraq War, or the role religion and faith plays in the life of the US President.
Now is the time to offer our help, be it in the form of trucks, men, cash, etc.

This is the only fitting response from a country that claims to be compassionate and kind.

Mudslinging at Nortel

2005-08-14T23:39:00.000-04:00

In the FP Comments section of the Financial Post for Tuesday, July 26 and Wednesday, July 27, there are 2 columns by Donald H. Thain that discusses the rudderless situation that Canadian telecom giant, Nortel, is finding itself in right now.

One of the key topics and personalities of the discussion was one Gary Daichendt, who signed on as the president and Chief Operating Officer for Nortel, only to quit in June, three months after they were hired.
Daichendt came from Nortel competitor, Cisco, and brought with him Chief Technology Officer Gary Kunis, as well as an illustrious leadership and success record.

By all rights, Daichendt was an excellent COO and strategist - his aggressive and competitive style had worked well during his time at Cisco, and many had expected it to help Nortel as well. More importantly, considering that Nortel had been mired in very public and very damaging scandals regarding its ethics, its governance, and transparency, the fact that Daichendt held a reputation as "a devout Christian who walked the talk of high ethical standards."

However, something happened to sour what seemed like a good fit.
Owens, the CEO of Nortel who had hired the duo, cited differences of opinion between Daichendt and himself as the reason for the break.
However, someone later leaked to the press that "religion caused Daichendt to quit."
Specifically, the story goes that Daichendt and his wife were told by God, at their morning prayers, that he should deliver an ultimatum to the board to be made CEO immediately, and that the current CEO and CFO must go.

An outraged Daichendt has completely denied this story, "and to date, no one at Nortel has denied the leak, disavowed the report or contradicted Daichendt's reply."

So let's recap on what we have here:

A capable, competent business leader who adheres to strict ethical standards, leaves a company.
In the aftermath of the split, someone in the company claims that this Christian believes that God told him to deliver an ultimatum to the board.

What do we have?
The answer is character assassination mixed with the exploitation of one's religious beliefs and faith in order to hurt, undermine, or damage said-person.

This is definitely not in the Nortel-issued reports on their governance.
At the end of all my rambling, what was the point of this little story?

My point is simple:

If you are a Christian, and you seek to live according to the standards and moral code of the Bible, you can EXPECT people to use that against you.
You can EXPECT to be slandered, mocked, and denigrated.
If an accomplished business leader with a proven record is targeted, and his faith used against him, what makes you think that people like us will be spared?
For that matter, look at the fate Jesus faced when He was on earth. If they would kill the Master, what makes us think that we will be spared?

In light of this, what is our response?

The only logical course of action is to continue to walk the narrow path, regardless of the stones and arrows that will be tossed our way.
Simply put, we cannot afford to lower ourselves to the ways of the world.
We must remember always that God is the ultimate judge, and that unlike the people of this world, His judgment is lasting - His judgment is eternal.
When we look at what we face in life, in relation to eternity, adversity and persecution that seems so unbearable, suddenly gets put into the correct perspective.
We may fail according to the standards and guidelines of the world (we maybe less wealthy with material goods, we may lack fame and fortune, etc.), but when our lives are but a flitting moment in view of eternity, who cares? Eternal victory, which lasts and truly matters, is already ours.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

2005-08-06T21:00:00.000-04:00

Is there anyone else living in the Greater Toronto Area who, like me, is getting roundly pissed off by the almost weekly (if not daily) reports of shootings, gang-related gunfights, etc.?

Just the past long weekend, in the span of 12 hours, the GTA witnessed 3 shooting incidents - one of them in a crowded public space (the Dundas Square) in the midst of hundreds of innocent bystanders, and dozens of police officers, killing one man.

Previously, two innocent bystanders were struck by wild bullets on Yonge St., near Ryerson University. It is hard not to get the impression that we, the law-abiding, are becoming something of a threatened, silent majority these days - in interviews regarding the most recent spate of shootings, in particular the one involving four-year old Shaquan Cadougar, elicited angry, but also frightened responses. All of the interviewed refused to give their names, citing fears of retribution, but all seemed equally disgusted and angry - here are some excerpts from the Friday Aug. 5 National Post:

"I have a four-year-old daughter," said a woman who did not want to be named. "She can't go outside and play because maybe there'll be a drive-by shooting."

She added: "You shoot a four-year-old and you think you're a big man?... If police were harder, there wouldn't be this problem."

Said another resident, who asked that his name not be used: "Jail them. Forever."

No doubt, our citizens ought to be concerned, and disgusted. However, I believe that this is not enough - we should now be beyond simple concern and disgust, and into the realm of righteous anger. I am sick and tired about hearing about a bunch of lowlife animal scum who have no respect for human life, casually firing into crowds of people, in crowded nightclubs, restaurants, or near children. This is absolutely ridiculous, and it cannot be tolerated. These animals should be caught, prosecuted, jailed, and if necessary, executed. There can be no apologizing for the behaviour of these petty thugs - animals who have no sense of decency or honour (where do you find honour in shooting a four-year old?).
These young punks are so insecure and pathetic that they feel the need to protect their "manhood" (if you ask me, these dogs have not even an ounce of manhood in them) - witness the shooting of a good, friendly, 26-year old, Umathevan "Uma" Thiyagarajah, who was cut down when he tried to break up a fight between his friend and a "light-skinned black man" who was assaulting his friend.
These pigs need to be shown the true meaning of fear. Execute a few of them and we'll see who's willing to pull a gun in response to being cut off.

Unfortunately, our befuddled government (local, provincial and federal) are so incompetent and unable to take responsibility for their lack of diligence that they have (surprise surprise) gone off to blame the Americans for our criminal woes.
Instead of taking responsibility for our inability to rein in these thugs, we have taken to the standard Canadian refrain: Blame America First.
Socialist Toronto mayor David Miller should be spending his time and efforts to eradicate these scum, instead of harping on and on about that damned airport bridge, the city's perceived lack of greenspace, etc. etc. How about doing something constructive and necessary for a change there, Dave?
Incompetent Ontario Premier Dalton "Dolton" McGuinty: How about addressing serious issues such as these instead of crying about the offensive nature of words like "man", "woman", "husband", "wife", etc. in our constitution? How about taking the effort to secure our cities and our citizens, instead of appeasing every enviro-weenie whim to shut down our power generation facilities (bang up job of crippling our industry and causing unnecessary inconvenience to the citizens, by the way)?
As for the federal Liberals (for whom there are not enough negative adjectives), how about pulling your heads out of the sand to accept the reality that the firearms registry is pointless?
How many duckhunters are doing driveby shootings?
Stop wasting our money - do something useful instead. As long as there is a demand for weapons, there will be a supply - it is simple economics. Until we dry up the demand for illicit weapons, we will not be able to stem the flow of guns, be it from the States, or anywhere else.

<>On the topic of firearms, when will people understand that guns are neutral and inanimate objects? A gun will not, by it's own volition, decide to load itself, point itself at people, and shoot them.
It is the holder who assumes responsibility - and if someone is hellbent on taking life, they will do it with whatever means are available - be it a gun, a knife, or a plastic vase.
Countries like Switzerland have very high gun ownership rates - yet, would you refer to Switzerland as a hopeless country steeped in murder and crime?
Simply stated, the arguments offered by our gun-controlfreaks have been shown time and time again not to hold water (witness "gun-free" Canadian city, Winnipeg, which is stricken with skyhigh crime and murder rates).
In view of the flood of shootings by gangs of animals, and the seeming inability of the police to protect us or prosecute these thugs, I must say that I am feeling a bit of empathy with those advocates of gun ownership.
Until then, I sincerely hope that those idiotic gangbangers will start to learn to shoot - maybe then, the animals can kill each other off without injuring innocent bystanders.
And to their fate will I say "good riddance to bad garbage."

Faretheewell!!!

2005-08-04T23:55:00.000-04:00

Over the years, most normal folks manage to meet a number of truly standup people whom they are lucky enough to count as true friends.

With that in mind (and the "most normal" caveat), it is really a miracle that God has blessed my life with so many wonderful brothers, sisters, and friends.

It is with some sadness that we send off Olwen, who has always been an awesome sister, as she embarks on that fantastic journey that is life - moving to Seattle to pursue a career, and build a life.
Wish you nothing but the best, Olwen!
Thanks for being someone we could always rely on to be a voice of reason, wisdom, and such a wonderful person!

We'll do our best to step up to the plate while you're away, and we will pray for you!
Just remember to visit us every now and then!

Cheerio!
May you find success, prosperity, but also joy and hope in your new surroundings!
Keep on letting your lamp burn for Him!

Christmas in July?

2005-07-27T23:17:00.000-04:00

Enjoy this older article I wrote in the latter days of 2004, against the removal of Christ from Christmas.

Merry Christmas: Saying it as a display of faith!
Dec. 14, 2004

Hey all,

Dunno if you've noticed this, but in recent years, references to Christ in Christmas have become scarcer and scarcer.
This is no accident.
Political correctness has now become the de facto rule in Canada - apparently, mentioning Christ,
and God in Christmas has become offensive to some.
The impact of this can be seen in any department store, at any school. Gone are the signs that say "Merry Christmas",
replaced with ambiguous and non-offensive "Happy Holidays" or "Season's greetings" signs.

This ridiculous rejection of all things God-related is being crammed down our throats, whether we like it or not.
Example: I recently attended a "Holiday Serenade" at Richmond Hill Highschool. The faculty went to very great lengths
to omit any reference to Christ or "Christmas". In fact, one of the songs performed was "Imagine", by John Lennon.
One of the lines in this song goes like this: "Imagine there's no heaven/it's easy if you try/No hell below us/above us only sky"
Another: "Imagine there's no countries/It isn't hard to do/Nothing to kill or die for/No religion too"
Of course, they did sing "The First Noel", so I guess there is something of a balance there.

The point I am trying to make here is this:
Our faith and belief in God, in Jesus Christ, is under siege. It is under siege in the courts (see Bill C-250), it is under siege
in our schools, it is under siege anywhere in the public realm.
Reading the article attached (which is written mainly for Americans, but applies to Canucks too), it is pretty clear where we
are headed as a country (in fact, Canada being more "enlightened" and "progressive", we are many steps closer to moral morass.)
As Christians, we are not to back down in the face of opposition. We are not to go "quietly into the night".
This season, when you greet your friends and family, greet them in a way that reminds them what this holy day is about.

"Merry Christmas".
Say it loud and proud.
Merry Christmas to you all.

http://www.illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=21501

Money money money... Muh-nay!!

2005-07-19T23:50:00.000-04:00

During a lunchtime chat today, my buddy Joel and I discussed the issue of worldly wealth and material riches.
From the previous post, it may seem that I and other Christians are against the attainment and amassing of worldly wealth.
Not so.

Christianity is NOT anathema to material wealth - not at all. In fact, Max Weber (philosoper) wrote a book that suggested capitalism and economic prosperity owe much to the so-called Protestant work ethic (Methodists in particular were studied).

There is nothing in the Bible that says one cannot be a faithful, devout Christian, and also blessed with material riches.
Money itself is neutral - it is not the root of all evils (contrary to the popular sayings) - it is once money becomes the ultimate goal, when one falls into the "love of money", that problems arise.

To develop the point, I refer to 1 Corinthians 10:13.
Paul writes:

"No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it."

It is this way with all things - note that while God never allows us to be tempted beyond what we can bear, there is a caveat in that we do not always do the right thing; that is, we do not always choose to take the way out and flee from temptation. This is an important point to remember: What we are faced with, we are fully capable of escaping or defeating. However, this does not mean that we invariably choose to do the right thing and make the right choice.
So it is with issues like sexual temptation, tempers, or speech, so it is with money.

God does not allow His believers to gain more wealth than we are capable of handling - that's all. He never said that we cannot be wealthy or prosperous; rather, He wants us to be able to live life to the fullest - for some of us, who have trouble dealing with the responsibilities and temptations of great wealth, He is merciful, and does not allow us more than we can bear.
For as Jesus Himself said, "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a wealthy man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven" - this is not to imply that wealthy folks are inherently missing something in the way or morals, but rather those who love their money too much, will not be able to see the value in God or His salvation.
In this, it should be quite clear that Christians are not prohibited from enjoying worldly prosperity - however, we must always remember that our priorities lie in the Kingdom of God, where our riches never decay and cannot be stolen - if we can constantly remember this, and treat our material wealth accordingly (i.e. not hoarding it, or lording it over others, practicing charity, etc.), there is absolutely no problem.

It wasn't an accident that Solomon wrote of the noble wife in Proverbs 31:10-31
¹⁰ A wife of noble character who can find?
She is worth far more than rubies.
...
¹⁶ She considers a field and buys it;
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.

...

¹⁸ She sees that her trading is profitable,
and her lamp does not go out at night.

Meaningless! Everything is meaningless!

2005-07-14T16:29:00.000-04:00

That was more or less what the Teacher concluded of our worldly concerns, in that profound book, Ecclesiastes.
It is a truth that has stood the test of time, and remains true (or perhaps, has become even more true) in today, which is marked by the abundance of comfort, material wealth and goods (of course, with the caveat that you must live in North America, Europe, or East Asia).

Time and time again, we find ourselves trying to find our meaning and our purpose in the wrong places - we look to fame, we look to fortune, to status, to security.
Yet, time and time again, we find only disillusionment, dissatisfaction, displeasure, and emptiness.

Don't get me wrong: material goods and wealth are, like money, neutral (if not beneficial) in and of themselves.
What I would wish to address, however, is when they become our masters, and the overriding reason for everything we do (in Judeo-Christian circles, this is called "idolatry").

Looking into the news today, we see that WorldCom CEO Bernie Ebbers has been sentenced to 25 years in prison, for the massive fraud that wracked WorldCom, and swindled millions from unsuspecting employees. At the peak, the shares for the company headed by Mr. Ebbers were worth $65 apiece - that's a pretty penny - and he himself was worth an estimated $1.4 billion (figures are US dollars). And yet, today, we see how he has fallen - from being a man who, by the world's measures, was immensely successful and influential, into the weeping man sentenced to prison today.
Having enough money was not an issue for him - after all, for a man who has $1.4 billion but still wants more, what is "enough"? Was the money to blame for the misfortune he brought upon himself, not to mention the lives he ruined?
No.
Money makes no decisions. It cannot harm, just as it cannot love. The root cause here, was Ebbers' overwhelming love for "more", more money, more assets, more...

But what about us? Surely, this is only an extreme case, and everyday men and women such as you and I are not affected?

God, through His servant, the prophet Isaiah, in Isaiah 57, had this to say to those who idolize/worship anything or anyone other than the Lord, God:

⁶ The idols among the smooth stones of the ravines are your portion;
they, they are your lot.
Yes, to them you have poured out drink offerings
and offered grain offerings.
In the light of these things, should I relent?

We sacrifice to these idols our time, our energy, and our possessions. Is it worth it?
These days, one of the biggest idols is wealth and money.
We sacrifice so much these days, for money - was it worth it to lose your health along the way, alienate our families, and give up so much to something that doesn't ever satisfy?
Was it worth it to spend years studying something you don't love, all in hopes that you will get a better career and more wealth? Does money even satisfy?
Would you be satisfied with $10,000?
How about $10 million?
Even secular philosophers such as Hobbes noted that there is nothing in the earthly realm that can satisfy man - we keep desiring more and more - if not of one thing, then of another.
We are fools, if we think that mere dollars (or any other earthly thing) will be able to satisfy all our needs - at most, we can hide behind our money and our possessions, feigning happiness and contentment to all (including ourselves), but when we are old and ragged, will we think it was worth it all?
Even though we hide behind the "security" of all these things, are these things capable of keeping us from God's influence (the "act of God" clause in insurance suggests that no amount of money or any other man-made thing will ever be able to do so)?

He continues:
¹⁰ You were wearied by all your ways,
but you would not say, 'It is hopeless.'
You found renewal of your strength,
and so you did not faint.

Why are we so obstinate that we continue to follow this dead end path? Even after we hear stories of unhappy rich folk, or of the emptiness of all this, why are we still running headlong down this worn path?
Why not expend our resources and selves for something that satisfies?

God asks:

¹¹ "Whom have you so dreaded and feared
that you have been false to me,
and have neither remembered me
nor pondered this in your hearts?
Is it not because I have long been silent
that you do not fear me?

What is it that compels us to do such foolish deeds; such empty, hollow, meaningless deeds?
Why do we still fear? God Himself has promised to take care of our needs - and that we shall never be found in want of the most necessary things.
Why can't we put our trust in an everlasting, infinite God, but instead put our trust in the dollar, our own efforts, or the wisdom of man?
Whom is it that we fear more than God? At its core, this error shows us a lot about what we think about God - and that is, we doubt His faithfulness, or we doubt His power.

¹² I will expose your righteousness and your works,
and they will not benefit you.

¹³ When you cry out for help,
let your collection of idols save you!
The wind will carry all of them off,
a mere breath will blow them away.
But the man who makes me his refuge
will inherit the land
and possess my holy mountain."

The error of our ways is this: When true crisis comes, nothing we have laboured for or hoarded, or stored, will be sufficient.
A wise man once noted that "any problem that can be solved by money, is no problem at all."

Money comes and goes, as with any other earthly thing - why would we peg our lives to something so fleeting, so unable to satisfy - something that is here one instant, and gone in the blink of an eye?
Will money be able to patch together our broken bodies?
Or our broken families?
Or our broken hearts?
Or our broken souls?
Is Bernie Ebber's money doing him any good now?

What does it profit a man to gain the world, yet lose his soul?
Wouldn't it be far more profitable to invest in things that last? To build up treasures where they cannot be stolen, cannot decay, cannot lose value?

Enough rambling for now - I just hope I made sense.

Looking backwards

2005-07-06T16:00:00.000-04:00

These past few days, God has been calling my attention to something that I have undoubtedly been guilty of.
I have often been caught, "looking back" at the life I left behind, instead of looking forward.
Instead of looking forward to what God will show me, bless me with, guide me to, use me for, etc., I have at times, turned back to look upon what I'd left behind - what I had once thought to be freedom to do what I wished, think what I wished, say what I wished, feel what I wished, etc.

Every now and then, I do get fooled into believing that, just a little look here, a half step back there, would not hurt me, others, or my walk with God.
How wrong I was, for whenever I gave in to the desire to look back (if only for a split second, and if only subconsciously), I would suddenly find myself mercilessly bombarded by temptation, lies, distortion, and things that would lead me further and further from the path marked by God (a path that is straight and narrow, but safe and well-lit), until I would stumble and fall.

It was only until I reread a story familiar to many, that I saw and understood what I had been guilty of; what had been holding me back from moving forward.

In Genesis 19:15-29, we are taken back to the moment when Lot and his family are commanded to leave Sodom, before God's punishment fell upon the city's wayward and immoral peoples.
The command of the angels to Lot is one we all ought to reflect upon.

[17] And when they had brought them forth, they said, "Flee for your life; do not look back or stop anywhere in the valley; flee to the hills, lest you be consumed."

As with a great rushing flood, the instructions were clear: Run for your life, and do not look back, or you will be consumed.

As I read this, however, I was suddenly given an understanding that there was more to this than just the preservation of physical safety - there was a quality here that spoke volumes on one of the dangers in our spiritual walk, for, as I went away from the spiritual Sodom (my past life in sin, as part of the world), I find that I had often stopped to look back - each time bringing upon myself deep wounds, rough falls, and guilt and shame.

Let's read on:
[26] But Lot's wife behind him looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

Perhaps one of the most incredible moments in the Old Testament was the reducing of Lot's wife into a pillar of salt (often ridiculed and seized upon by those who disbelieve or mock).
I won't go into a defense of this (and the many others) point that are attacked as evidence that the Bible is nothing but myths and superstitions (indeed, even if I did, I probably would not be able to do the Bible justice - so I leave it to Him to convince), but I will say that if the God of the Bible is Who He says He is, such unbelievable acts are certainly nothing for Him.

Back on track, and taken with the earlier quote urging Lot to run, the fate of Lot's wife shows me just how imperative it is that we do not look back.
Just what do we accomplish by looking back?
At best, we have our focus taken away from what God is leading us to, or we delay our journey by slowing down a bit.
At worst, we might be stopped on our journey altogether, ceasing to grow and mature while we stay, pulled over on the shoulder of the road to Completion.
Or worse yet, we may even decide to do a three-point turn, and head back towards the place that we'd come from; a place with no hopes for the future, and nothing to offer but short-lived thrills and emptiness. As Lot's wife found out, the consequences for something seemingly so innocuous as looking back, taking a glance in the rearview mirror, can be dire and lethal.

Isaiah 50:5, 10-11
[5] The Sovereign LORD has opened my ears, and I have not been rebellious; I have not drawn back.

Isaiah also touches on the subject. Even in the midst of a people who had turned their backs to their Creator and God, Isaiah did not go with the flow. He did not look back, once he realized where God wanted him to go, what God wanted him to do, and who God wanted him to be.
Do not be drawn back to our rebellious past.

[10]Who among you fears the LORD and obeys the word of his servant? Let him who walks in the dark, who has no light, trust in the name of the LORD and rely on his God.
[11]But now, all you who light fires and provide yourselves with flaming torches, go, walk in the light of your fires and of the torches you have set ablaze. This is what you shall receive from my hand: You will lie down in torment.

Isaiah trusted God to light his path, rather than his own efforts. He implored his people to do the same. Rather than trust the ever-changing whims and fancies of human cunning and wisdom, trust in the never-changing, never-ending, never-failing wisdom of God.
This is another thing that causes us to turn back - once we start to view our own human (and finite) wisdom higher than is merited, we begin to view God's infinite wisdom with less weight, and we begin to think that we have things sorted out, including the risks and consequences.

Now that we have seen some of the biblical examples, and we have reflected on the things we've experienced in our own lives, we must ask ourselves:

Is it worth the risk? Is it worth it to look back, and perhaps wax nostalgic about where we've come from? Or perhaps to sample, just a little, the life we once lived?
Is it worth it to destroy everything we've been given by God, every tidbit of spiritual wisdom, every bit of spiritual growth, just to scratch the itch?
Is it worth it to feel emptiness and distance from God, and guilt and shame the prevents us from looking into His eyes (even though we know they are the forgiving, loving, sad eyes of a brokenhearted Father)?

I can't say that it is (though I'm sure there will be moments when I maybe swayed by the tempting impulses and voices) - what can it profit us to look back?
From my experience, looking back has produced nothing that could possibly benefit me. To the contrary, time and time again, looking back has taken me from the path God has set before me, and led me to paths that, rife with cheap thrills as they maybe, were crooked, uneven, fraught with dangers, potholed, filled with stones to stumble on, oil slicks to slip on, and whatever else could lead to my skidding out of control.
Giving in has only led to distance from God - to regrets and painful, time-consuming distractions that steal me away from what I need to be doing, who I need to be, and where I need to go.

So what are we to learn from Lot's wife, as well as the many trials and tribulations we have undoubtedly faced (and some, regrettably failed)?

Don't look back. Ever.
Keep heading for the hills, for the high places, on the path that has been set for you, lest you turn back, and find disaster upon you.

Parental discretion not advised

2005-07-06T14:53:00.000-04:00

Shane Cameron of Toronto just completed Grade 6, but his reading and math skills are years below where they should be.

Shane's solution?

He wants to repeat Grade 6 to review the things he didn't fully grasp the first time.
(Paraphrased from National Post, July 5, 2005 page A6).

Sounds dandy, right?
A responsible solution right?

If you're the principal of the boy's school, and part of his school board, no, this plan is not feasible.
Why?
The boy's plan has his support, as well as that of his parents. It would go a long way towards helping him get the help and tools he needs for success. Plus, it was on his own initiative that he suggested this plan.
What's not to like?

Apparently, grade retention is "detrimental" to children's self-esteem.
As a result, "a psychologist has suggested Ritalin and a learning disability assessment in Grade 7."
So it'll hurt his self-esteem to be left behind a grade, but just fine to be labelled with a learning disability?
Nevermind that Shane's scores weren't nearly as bad as to warrant the description.
Nevermind the wishes of the boy and his parents (you'd think they'd have a bit of a say in this?).
The Toronto School Board, and the Principal of this school are right, parents' and student's wishes be damned.

I am taken back to the movie the Incredibles.
One of the most telling lines from that film takes place between the mother and son:
Mom: "Everybody's special, Dash"
Son: "Which is just a way of saying no one is"

To ape a later line in the flick, we keep finding ways to celebrate mediocrity, and make everybody feel like there's nothing wrong with the situation (despite falling test scores and scores of other issues that are rising in our schools).

Way to go.
If there's one thing we don't need in our school system, it's responsible, rational solutions.

Kiss me, I'm diverse and tolerant!!

2005-06-29T23:30:00.000-04:00

Well, it's finally happened.
Same sex marriage is finally here in name, not just in deed.

Nonetheless, despite this being a disappointment, let us take solace in the fact that God has everything under control. Even though this is a battle we appear to have lost, let us not doubt what we already know - the outcome has already been decided, and the war already won.
God will make good of this situation, and I can only hope that all Christians will continue to love all - be it their persecutors, or the mockers and scoffers. This is especially applicable to the members of the homosexual community - let us show them that we harbour no ill will towards them - rather, we seek to bring them freedom from their life of bondage, just as Christ freed us from ours. Let us not demonize homosexuality anymore than other sins such as lying, murder, theft, idolatry, etc. Let us show the very people who hate us, or believe that we hate them, that we do, in fact, love them very much, and long for them to live life to the fullest, as we do.
Of course, this does not mean that we ought not punish the people who led us to this place, by voting them out of office next election.

The proponents of same sex marriage have finally claimed their victory, won over the corpse of democracy, as various MPs were barred from voting their consciences - NDP MP Bev Desjarlais was stripped of her post as critic of foreign policy by Jack Layton for daring to vote her conscience, and Liberal Cabinet ministers were ordered to toe the party line - Liberal Joe Comuzzi took the admirable step of resigning his cabinet position in order to vote against C-38, and the stifling of debate by forcing the issue through the committee (with the anti-SSM speakers sometimes being called only the day before their hearings to prepare their case - how's that for fair debate?).

This outcome should never have surprised anyone - despite the valiant efforts of various groups from multi-ethnic and multi-faith backgrounds (as true a celebration of diversity as any), the mainstream media tended to favour the pro-SSM side (lavishing them with pictures and stories for pro-SSM rallies numbering in the hundreds, whilst ignoring or under-reporting anti-SSM demonstrations in the tens-of-thousands), and the numerical superiority of the NDP-Bloc-Liberal Coalition (ranked in order of influence in the sordid display that is Canadian government).
Not only this, but from the start, it was clear where this was going - when every pro-SSM view is flouted as being as significant as the civil rights movements of the 60s (though this is an embellishment of the gay movement, and an insult to the Black civil rights movement), and any contrary viewpoint, however well-grounded in the document the Liberals/NDP/Bloc purport to support - the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or however educated and informed, is almost instantly demonized as reactionary, bigoted, homophobic, a contravention of Church/State separation, etc., it would show anyone, just which side was being favoured, first by our unelected, unaccountable Supreme Court judges (mostly appointed by Liberals, by the way), then by our supposedly-unbiased media, and finally by various members of Parliament.
Nevermind that it took the very creative "interpretation" and "reading" of the Charter to make it into a document that guarantees the right for gays to marry (sexual preference is, for those of us who choose to read FROM the document, rather than read INTO it, not covered under Article 15, which outlines what constitutes discrimination and what distinctions are protected).

From Wikipedia.org, and memories of Pol103Y in first year:

Under the heading of "Equality Rights" this section states:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

It would appear that our Supreme Court judges would benefit from a remedial reading course.
Of course, bring up points like this, as well as the fact that gay couples already had full access to everything married couples got (taxation issues, visitation rights, the whole nine yards minus the actual term "marriage"), and in no time, you'll be labelled an extremist, a zealot, a fundamentalist (always referring to a Christian, by the way - despite the support from the Jewish and Islamic communities), a bigot, a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal, etc. etc. (the irony of this intolerance for different views often lost on our "tolerant progressives").

Erstwhile, constitutionally-enshrined rights such as Freedom of Conscience and Religion are cast aside at the bidding of the gay lobby (representing a whopping 2-3% of our population, roughly 4% of which are actually in committed relationships - tell me again how giving "gay marriage" legitimacy doesn't further delegitimize the stable marriage?) and our political Elites and Overlords.

In the face of this, what can ordinary Canadians (at least 57% of whom oppose same sex marriage) do?
Vote them out.
Vote out every crook, every liar.
Vote out people like Liberal Immigration Minister Joe Volpe, who stood before a Catholic parish before his election and promised to vote against any same-sex marriage legislation (he voted for it, citing the weak excuse that his cushy Cabinet post was more important to him than the wishes of his constituents - the people who got him elected in the first place).
Vote against parties that do not allow free votes on issues (i.e. a certain ruling regime that forced its cabinet ministers to vote it's way, or a certain party propping up a corrupt regime that stripped a cabinet post from the one member who dared vote her conscience).

While Same-Sex Marriage may seem to concern only the fervently-religious (often said with negative undertones in the media) and the oppressed homosexuals (who, unlike the rest of us, have a day in which they can publicly commit acts of indecency, lewdness and debauchery), it does have implications for all of Canada.
For starters, when the will of at least 57% of Canadians can be ignored in an alleged democracy (well, constitutional monarch, but who's counting?), we have a problem.
When Canadians who voted for a minority Liberal government suddenly get an NDP budget (NDP accounting for 19 seats out of 308 in the House of Commons), we have a problem.
When Canadians are being barred from exercising the freedom of speech, religion, and conscience for the sake of the trumped up allegations of 2-3% of the population, we have a problem.
When all debate is stifled simply by calling opponents "bigots" or "intolerant", we have a problem.

Which brings me to my next point:

Diversity IS A CROCK.

This will be a shock to anyone accustomed to our "we're so diverse and multicultural" Canadian views. The truth is, diversity itself is a form of segregation. Instead of celebrating our common ground, it seems some are going out of their way to focus on our differences.
Instead of simply ensuring that no one is unfairly discriminated against (i.e. when looking for employment), we now have Affirmative Action movements that have led to reverse racism and sexism (i.e. government job postings that basically say "if you are a white male, you need not apply").
This has eroded the meritocracy (focus on merit and achievement) that is the lifeblood of a competitive economy and a society that strives for the best, and replaced it with quotas that have lowered efficiency, and discriminated against otherwise-qualified individuals, who happen to be of the wrong gender, or of the wrong ethnic background.
Not only this, but it implies that, in a perfectly competitive atmosphere, us visible minorities are not as capable as our Caucasian fellow citizens, hence necessitating the lowering of standards, or establishment of quotas in order to ensure that we have a "fighting chance".

Basically, we're not good enough to compete, so the powers that be must lower the bar for us and hold back the non-minority folks a bit.

Hardly the view I would want of myself. If I get a job, I want to know it is because I can offer a quality service and do a quality job for my employer, not because I belong to the correct ethnicity or gender.

Not only this, but diversity has nullified legitimate debate on various issues.
For example, the verified high incidence of HIV/AIDS in the gay community - say this, and you are an ignorant redneck.
Or, the disproportionate number of young Black males in jail (as opposed to, say, young Asian males). Touch on topics like this, and you're a Nazi-fascist-racist-bigot.

What this has done is insulated us from criticism. Instead of making us humble and aware of our faults (and every people group or individual has some), we have now been encouraged to ignore faults in ourselves, and others.
We have been encouraged to say "it's not me, it's them", and pull out the race card whenever convenient.
We have been led to blame the "injustice" of the system, rather than work harder to achieve.
Do we really need to be coddled like this? Are we all so weak and immature that we cannot handle criticism?
And if truly ignorant and misguided folks like the KKK put out their propaganda, are we really so incapable of vindicating ourselves?
What is a better retort to hate propaganda from groups like the Neo-Nazis, KKK, Black Panthers, etc., than a successful Black lawyer, or Jewish doctor, or Asian athlete?

Until we can grow up, sadly, we will simply languish in a shell, all the while thinking "I'm great", instead of "I could always be better"
And this is the tragedy of the well-intentioned train wreck that is our "multi-cultural"/"diversity" drives.

Proof that knowledge does not always beget wisdom...

2005-06-29T22:18:00.000-04:00

One of the most interesting news items these past few days, is the plight of Hassan Almrei, who is currently being held by the CSIS as a security threat, on allegations that he has forged documents (including Canadian passports), trained with radical Jihadists (i.e. the al Qaeda), lied to the people responsible for the security of our country, having ties to Chechen extremists (the same animals who slaughtered 300 civilians in a school at Beslan last year - half of them children), etc. etc.

In the strictest sense, no charges have been laid - Almrei's continued detainment stems from the issue of a "security certificate", which found the Syrian refugee to be a threat to Canadian security (by the Federal Court of Canada).

This has attracted bleeding heart liberals (particularly the rich and famous ones - I guess the others are too busy working for a living to busy themselves with freeing a likely terrorist), such as the son of former PM Pierre Elliot Trudeau (the wiseman who, with a straight face, prophesied that Siberia would be where the future of the world would be), Alexandre (Sasha) Trudeau, former CBC hosts/writers Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis.

One would suppose that, being privileged with such a situation (son of a former PM, or former holders of high positions at the national broadcasting corporation) would cause the aforementioned to bring some common sense and wisdom with them.
Sadly, such is not the case - perhaps common sense is only for us commoners - Trudeau has suggested that his support for the alleged terrorist is (in a sick twist of the word), "patriotism"...
One would believe that had there been more such "patriots" in the 1800s, Canada would be part of the United States of America today (in name, instead of simply in fact, as it is today).

Bear in mind Almrei has already confessed to lying to authorities, and to receiving AK-47 training while in Afghanistan.

Surprise surprise - when an alleged terrorist is being held, who is it that runs to his/her/it's rescue? The elites of our established Left.
One gets to feeling that perhaps the issue at hand here is not the veracity of the allegations (the evidence cannot yet be divulged, as it is sensitive information), as much as it is the intention of many in the Left (particularly in Canada) to see how much we can piss the Americans off (who are justifiably concerned about security threats, given little things such as 9/11).

It is unfortunate that those who should be our best, brightest, most esteemed, well-educated, etc. would be able to make such a huge error in judgment as this - throwing their political clout and dollars behind the cause of a man who, at best, is a liar and a friend of dangerous peoples, and at worst, is a perpetrator of crimes against our state (and indeed, humanity).

Let this be a clear sign to all of us - knowledge, political pedigree, and working for the CBC, do not a wiseman (or woman) make.

As for Almrei?
If the allegations are true and the evidence held by our government credible, I say let him rot in jail.
I have no compassion or pity for those who would seek to target innocents - women, children, civilians, etc.
I don't care if these people have faced oppression or pain - the second you decide to take the lives of innocents, you have waived your right to the benefit of the doubt, and compassion.
Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.
Those who seek to achieve their goals (often illegitimate ones, i.e. the destruction of the "Zionist entity of Israel", or the "jihad" against us "infidels") by force (particularly force directed against civilians - see 9/11, the Palestinian Intifada, or the attacks by al Qaeda and their brand of animals) deserve to be despised by all who respect the rule of law, and the love of life, peace, and liberty.

Hypocrisy and contradictions

2005-06-09T23:22:00.000-04:00

Christianity is under attack.

And not by some terrorist planting roadside bombs in Iraq.
Nor by some militant laying an ambush in Afghanistan.

No, Christianity is under attack right where we live, in the purportedly-tolerant, enlightened societies of North America and Europe.
In today's National Post, columnist Bradley Miller assaults those Christians who oppose same-sex marriage as "fringe Christians" (nevermind that the Bible, the Holy Scripture of the Christian faith, is very clear in its opposition to homosexuality, as it is with murder, adultery, etc.).
Not only this, but he expresses disappointment about the collusion of ethnic minorities (including Muslims, the Jewish who are, oddly, labelled an ethnic minority) with aforementioned scary Christians, claiming that we are sowing the seeds for our own misfortune, citing the recent wave of anti-immigrant sentiment that is sweeping over the bastions of progressiveness and tolerance, Holland and Europe.

Barring that this view (with it's broad, wide, general brush strokes) ignores the possibility of being both an ethnic minority, and a "fringe" Christian (I would gladly identify myself as such), this can be seen as a veiled threat to those of us who dare speak out for our values.
The message is simple: minorities need to pipe down on issues like gay marriage, toe the (Liberal and NDP) party line, and keep smiling in the photographs with Paul Martin, lest the tolerant, politically-correct Canadians lash out at us for our views.
Apparently, our cuisine, culture, movies, music and stories will be tolerated, but our views on preserving family (beginning with the institution of marriage) will not.

Is this the multi-cultural, welcoming, tolerant Canada that we hear so much about (I didn't certainly didn't see this in the immigration brochure)?

Even more galling is the stunning hypocrisy that is exhibited by the Left here in Canada.
We can tolerate assaults on Stockwell Day's belief in Biblical, 6-day Creation (thank you, Chretien lapdog Warren Kinsella), and we can tolerate anti-Conservative demonstrators dressing up as the Flintstones to mock the purported-Christian support of the Conservatives.
In the case of the US, we can tolerate an "artist" submerging a crucifix in a jar of urine, but a rumour that the Koran has been defaced in Guantanamo Bay will send us into a frenzy of finger-pointing and collective "mea culpas."

Forgive the blunt language, but what the hell is this?

Apparently, Christians are THE group which anyone can pick on, mock, insult, defame or smear without incident. A recent Globe and Mail article lambasted Christians as (among other things) stone-aged knuckle draggers, and Christian women as braindead, glassy-eyed vegetables.
Why is this intolerance tolerated?

And yet, if someone with any link to the Christian faith, such as Larry Spencer of the old Canadian Alliance, who railed against homosexuality, or members of the Ontario PC party who were heckled and jeered by THEIR OWN PARTY MEMBERS for daring to speak out against so-called progressive values such as removing all gender-specific terms from our provincial constitution (hateful words such as "he", "she", "husband", "wife", etc.), we must immediately crucify him/her for their wickedness.

This is hypocrisy at its worst.
The worst part of it all, is that the perpetrators are completely oblivious to this, and are totally unwilling to listen to our pleas for fairness and equitable treatment.

Either nothing is sacred (in which case, go ahead and mock our faith and our beliefs - we in turn shall speak out against the sacred cows of gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, etc.), or everything is (in which case, cease the demonizing and hatred against Christians).
You can't have it both ways, and you certainly can't pick and choose (that would be *gasp* discriminatory).

We Christians will have to speak out, and speak up - for our rights and freedoms - our freedom of religion, freedom of belief, freedom of conscience, and right to express ourselves in constructive and peaceful ways - or be banished into the intellectual prison of silence and censorship.

Multi-faceted ramblings.

2005-06-08T17:36:00.000-04:00

The train of thought has derailed.

Here's what's coming to mind right off the bat:

Politics:
Canadians (and Ontarians especially) do not deserve democracy.
Why?
A corrupt (votebuying, offering incentives for defection, wild-spending, etc.) government continues to reign, and the main opposition party that had the cojones not to prop up corruption (ergo, not the NDP) has the lowest support in Ontario.
Why?
Because we apparently don't want an election now.
If now is not a good time, I really wonder when is a good time. If an indisputably corrupt, arrogant, and incompetent government isn't cause for an election, what will it take?
Will it take massive abuses of power to prod us out of our collective doldrums? Say, the theft of $300 million in taxpayer dollars? Been there, done that.
Multi-billion dollar fiascos, spent on pointless and fruitless programs (i.e. HRDC, gun registry, Kyoto)? Nothing to see here.
Political scandal reaching all the way up to the Prime Minister's right hand (i.e. BC Liberal Ujjal Dosanhj and Paul Martin's main advisor, Tim Murphy, caught on tape making implicit-but-indisputable offers to Conservative Gurmant Grewal for his vote)?
Nope.

We are now officially dead as a democracy. As a nation, at best, we are sheep.
And those who seek to wake us up, or offer an alternative, we are glad to punish in the polls (see Harper's Conservatives), while we continue to listen approvingly to those who have lied to us/do lie to us/will lie to us.
This is akin to putting our hands over our ears, closing our eyes, and screaming out "LALALALALA!!!" but hey, ignorance is bliss, right?

On culture:

Don't know about you, but I really wish that musicians and entertainers would just stick to doing their job - which is to entertain and perform.
Not to proselytize on behalf of political parties and platforms.
I am fairly convinced that the only type of rockstar, moviestar, or celebrity who will boldly preach their political views, and why they're right, or why you're a moron for thinking so, are those who really don't have much substance or rational thought in their views and arguments.
Look at the entire Hollywood establishment (with the odd exception here and there) who spend much of their time demonizing either A) that moronic Bush (see Sean Penn, Barbara Streisand, Michael Moore, Green Day, etc. etc.) or B) those scary, intolerant Christian Conservatives (i.e. Avril Lavigne and a cohort of Canadian musicians who railed against Harper last election, and much of the American Left in 2004).

These people are noteworthy examples of why fame, celebrity status, and talent, do not necessarily come bundled with sense, reason, or even critical thinking.
As a result of the intellectually weak-kneed preaching of these stars (whom Lenin would probably count as his "useful idiots"), much of our youth today are victims of collective group-think, whereby we all check our discretion, critical thinking, and principles at the door, in order to accomodate politically-correct, feel-good "values."

Even Christians are susceptible to this. Judging by some of the letters written to newspapers by self-professing Christians in favour of same-sex marriage, against the Conservatives, etc., there are many within the church (Roman Catholic or Protestant) who are guilty of this unthinking mentality. As the Liberals and their NDP cronies tighten the noose around religion (nominally) and Christianity (specifically), many of us are content to believe that nothing's wrong with this picture, or even go with the flow and castigate our brethren.
And thus, comes the lukewarm church that Jesus spoke of.
We are called, not to be citizens of this world, subscribing to every fad-belief, trendy-value, haute-couture stance, etc. - rather, we are ambassadors - as such, we bring different values, different beliefs, and different stances on the issues - all of which are timeless.
So why aren't we living outstanding lives (outside of Sundays)?
Isn't it time for us to ditch the world's standards (which are hideously low), and the world's values (which are often diametrically-opposed to those of God)?
Isn't it time for us to live the life we preach?

Something to ponder (even for myself - I must profess that often, I am long on rhetoric, short on action)...

As for our entertainers and stars?

Please.

Don't quit your day jobs.

On the plus side:
The weather's nice today!
And congratulations to my friends who are having their convocations in the coming days and weeks!

On anti-Christian bigotry

2005-06-04T18:22:00.000-04:00

This rabble is a waste of time
The above link is a fantastic piece by Toronto Sun columnist, Michael Coren.
For those of you who don't know, rabid left-wing website, rabble.ca, recently published a cartoon intended as satirical comedy (proof that the left doesn't have much of a sense of humour at all) of Pope Benedict XVI marching along and giving a Nazi salute while shouting "Heil Mary!"
This pathetic excuse for humour (which may be funded by Canadian taxpayers, via rabble.ca's parent company) is offensive and unfunny, as well as dishonest.
For one, it ignores that fact that Pope Benedict XVI was forced into the Hitler Youth against his will among other facts that were left out (but I'll leave it to you to read the article yourself).

Perhaps this is simply the work of a lunatic fringe in Canadian society, but the fact that no one is condemning this brazen drive-by shooting on every devout Catholic (not the Paul Martin brand of "devout", mind you) speaks volumes on our society.
Why is it alright for Christians to be the target of character assassinations, lies, and attacks?

This bigotry and intolerance against the Christian "zealots", "fundamentalists" and "extremists" is especially clear on topics such as so-called Same Sex Marriage, Abortion, and Euthanasia.
Apparently, the second a Christian voices his or her opinion on the subject, if it deviates from the politically-correct, feel-good-about-yourself, live-and-let-live (except in the case of abortion and euthanasia) norms, you are a bigoted redneck who probably wants to put all women back in the kitchen, and send gays and minorities to concentration camps.

Amusing contradiction, no?
We "extremists" are accused of being intolerant for opposing certain ideas.
Erstwhile, the allegedly-tolerant and respectful are allowed to table so-called "hate legislation" (i.e. C-250) that supposedly prevent provocation of hatred and violence, but in reality, has been used mostly against Christians who speak out on such issues as homosexuality from the Biblical perspective (no coincidence that gay NDP former MP Svend Robinson was the one who submitted C-250 as a private member's bill?). Couple this with C-38, the gay marriage bill, and Canada will soon be a country without guarantees of religious freedoms (despite the fact that religious freedom is enshrined in our constitution, while "right" to gay marriage is not).
Already, the Knights of Columbus in BC are being sued for refusing to rent out their hall to a lesbian couple seeking marriage (a course of action that, supposedly, they were well within their rights to take).
A Toronto-area printer, Scott Brockie, was fined $5000 for refusing to print certain items for a same-sex group on grounds that it violated his religious beliefs (he'd printed for homosexuals as individuals, but believed that printing for the group would promote homosexuality).
A BC teacher and Christian (by all accounts a good man, and a great contributor to his students and community), Chris Kempling, has been suspended for writing letters critical of homosexuality as a private citizen during summer holidays.

Where is this tolerance that I hear our left speak about so often?
Apparently it is available to everybody but Bible-believing Christians.
The Liberals and NDP are always quick to pat themselves on the backs for being tolerant, and promoting diversity, but is this really tolerance and diversity in practice?
Can we call it anything other than intolerance and bigotry, when certain groups are singled out for their views, opinions, beliefs, and religion?

Next time someone tries to tell you how tolerant Canada is (especially compared to the Americans and their "Christian Taliban theocracy"), do them a favour and give them a reality check.

"A rose by any other name..."

2005-05-31T01:16:00.000-04:00

Recently, I have noticed a habit of our government officials (both the Federal government, and the provincial government) to refer to almost every dollar of taxpayer money the spend as "investments."

This Friday, at the youth group I attend, a friend of mine quipped that we should "invest" in a decent BBQ grill.
My friend was, of course, half-kidding.
But it really made me wonder about the constant assurances of our various levels of government that the dollars they spent (yours and mine) were actually "investments."

Investments yield returns.

One example of investment would be infrastructure spending, or increasing R&D allocations to better our productivity.
Another would be investing in education so that our kids will grow to be upright, productive members of society.

However, a look at both the Federal and Provincial officials' praises for their own budgets raised some eyebrows for me (and no small amount of skepticism).
Social housing is an "investment?"
Don't get me wrong - a very good measure of a society is how well it treats it's poor and downtrodden.
However, I am skeptical about the nature of this "investment" for several reasons.
1) I live near a so-called "Co-Op housing project" - while undoubtedly, there are some people who are in need of genuine aid and help, the prevalence of luxury vehicles I saw gives the impression that perhaps some are exploiting the good intentions of the government.
2) The Liberals and NDP find a lot of support in groups which are dependent on government aid ("hand outs" if you will) - the cynic in me dismisses these "investments" as investments in continued Liberal electoral success, rather than altruistic intent.

So where are the returns to the people?

And then there are the "investments" in the environment.
Don't get me wrong: I love God's creation (every creature, tree, and blade of grass).
However, when billions of dollars are being earmarked towards initiatives built on very shaky scientific ground (i.e. the Kyoto protocol), shouldn't we who bankroll this government be raising some questions?
Already, the view that government tends to mess everything up is coming to realization - what was originally intended to be a $1billion "investment" in the Kyoto Protocol (which is, I should add, built upon "research" that has already been discredited and debunked) has exploded to $10billion according to the latest estimates.

Looking back at previous "investments" of our government (HRDC - $2billion, Gun Registry - $1billion, etc.), it really is hard not to look at this with a great deal of suspicion and dread.
And don't even start about the provincial Ontario government, which, under McGuinty and his pal Sorbara, have increased spending vastly, and are en-route to raising our deficit and debt (not to mention our healthcare premium "investment").

Here's to hoping our federal government (the one that managed to survive a confidence vote that they'd recognize with one vote) will prove me wrong and suddenly rediscover the way of fiscal prudence.

For now, please forgive me if I don't view this situation with rose-coloured glasses, but I would much rather that we all called a spade "a spade", and "irresponsible, uncoordinated spending disasters" anything but "investments."

Spring Conference 2k5

2005-05-23T19:50:00.000-04:00

Praise God.

After coming back from two-and-a-half days of beautiful May weather and warm friendship, that's all I can say.

This year's Spring Conference was totally awesome; I'm convinced that there are few things better than Victoria Day weekend spent with your brothers and sisters, laughing and learning together.

Special thanks for all this belong to all the people who served and made this trip possible, the speakers (Revs. Thumb, Lau, and Taylor), and the wonderful people of Heritage Seminary.
Not to mention, of course, all of the brothers and sisters, and of course, the Big Man Himself.

Not only did I get a recharge (mentally, and spiritually) but we also got to get to know brothers and sisters whom we rarely come into contact with in the usual church setting (hopefully, this will change).

Thanks for an awesome weekend!

Of ignorance and idiocy

2005-05-18T22:00:00.000-04:00

This morning, as I embarked on the GO Train to get to work, I came across an interesting conversation.

A quartet of Bay Street-types (two men, two women) got into a discussion about the Belinda Stronach defection.
I had previously assumed that Bay Streeters would generally be more educated and informed than the average Liberal voter.
Hoo boy, did I ever get that wrong.

For 10 minutes or so, I was entreated to bleatings about how Belinda was doing the right thing (apparently, it is now moral to stab your leader in the back, betray your constituents, and turn your back on your party, as well as selling out whatever principles you may have had - though for Belinda Stronach, this latter category is likely to be a ceaseless void), and how Harper just couldn't be trusted (no matter that the Liberals are the ones under investigation/stopping investigations/obstructing investigations/etc.).
Never mind the corruption, the graft, the kickbacks, and the outright theft of taxpayer money - the Conservatives just CANNOT be trusted.

At this point, I could already feel the urge to interject, but I thought it wise to hold back.
The men were much more reasonable, raising the issue of the insanity of turning your back not only on your party, but on the people who elected you. This was not to be mistaken for shining support for the Conservatives, but at least I didn't hear from them vacuous and moronic statements like "a Conservative and Bloc government would destroy Canada."
Nevermind that the Conservatives would never invite the Bloc to govern with them - only to bring down a corrupt and undemocratic regime. Nevermind that no one has done more to foment and stoke the fires of separatism than the Liberal Party of Canada, first by incompetence (see Jean Chretien in 1995), then by arrogance and corruption (see the entire debacle that is AdScam).

How on earth do people working in Canada's financial capital manage to get it so very very wrong?
By all rights, these should be our best and brightest.
Yet they have no qualms with supporting a government that has flung $22 billion in taxpayer money since the election rumblings began, buying votes and fecklessly pouring buckets of our money into the hands of whoever complains loudest.
They have no qualms with supporting a government that has chosen to prostitute itself to the NDP for support (or was that the NDP prostituting their principles for leverage with a corrupt regime?) by removing corporate tax cuts that would've created 340,000 jobs and been worth roughly $5 billion.

It was at this point that the urge to vomit became almost overpowering, as I realized how incredibly undeserving Canadians are of democracy (indeed, the Liberals probably share this view - how else do you explain their complete disdain for democratic convention and processes?).
Throw a few carrots our way, convince us (lie to us if necessary) that the Other Guy is scary.
I hear Harper is so scary, he makes babies cry, and eats kittens for breakfast. Oh, and he'll put women back in the kitchen, put gays in concentration camps, round up the homeless with stormtroopers, take away healthcare from everybody, and burn crosses with his KKK buddies. I know this is true, because the Toronto Star said so, and I heard it from Paul Martin once.

Funny how well this works in Canada, supposedly a developed nation with strong democratic institutions, and educated citizens.
Not even the authoritarian military regimes in South Korea, who were more than willing to use deadly force, managed to command such incredible ignorance and apathy (the Korean people rose up and kicked them out with protests).
Even in the Philippines, the people mobilized against the corrupt dictator, Ferdinand Marcos in the rousing People Power demonstrations (they would do so again to oust corrupt Erap "Joe" Estrada).
And yet, here in Canada, the ruling regime can ignore a vote of confidence (on procedural grounds), and thus piss on what little claim Canada's government had to democracy, with nary a peep from the people.

I love Canada.

If Alberta decides it's had enough, and separates, I think I'll move there.

Good riddance to bad garbage!

2005-05-18T21:40:00.000-04:00

Well, it's finally come to this - spoiled and incompetent Magna heiress, Belinda Stronach, has finally made it official and switched allegiances to the Liberals.

You'll recall Belinda as the neophyte politician, daughter of Magna Inc. founder, Frank Stronach, who challenged Stephen Harper and Tony Clement for the leadership of the newly-merged Conservative Party of Canada.

If you've been paying attention, you'll also have noted that she has absolutely NO credentials or qualifications in the realm of politics and policy-making, and that her main assets included a large chequebook, and cozy relations with members of the business community.

You'll also remember her as being not exactly the type of lieutenant you'd want on your side in battle. Nakedly ambitious, impatient and unprincipled, it should be no surprise that she has crossed the floor. Right from the getgo, she raised eyebrows (even for a red Tory) about her loyalty (an aspect of hers which is really a non-issue; that is to say, nonexistent).

Opportunistic and power-hungry, she will undoubtedly be a welcome addition to the Liberal cabinet. With her connections and chequebook, she's the exact type of politician that the Liberals enjoy being with.

How does this affect the CPC?
Most obviously, this shifts the balance of the votes in the Liberals favour, but is that really such a bad thing?
Make no mistake: this "government" (if you can call it that) needs to be put out of it's misery ASAP, and Stephen Harper's Conservatives are the party that will get the job done.
However, would you really want to enter into an election battle with someone like Stronach "backing you up?"

Frankly, I see this as a hidden blessing for the CPC - no longer will they have to put up with the Princess, and no longer will they be held back by an untrustworthy, disloyal, opportunistic prima donna like Her Eminence here.
No longer will they be held back by an MP who lacks the decency and professionalism to support her party in it's quest to rid Canada of corrupt incompetents.
And as an added bonus, the Liberals get Belinda Stronach!

Make no mistake - Paul Martin and Belinda Stronach will come to regret this, as a regime that has made little secret of it's largesse and votebuying invites a power-hungry opportunist with no principles, and with no credibility left (think of all the jilted Aurorans who thought they'd elected a principled Conservative MP, and now find that they'd elected a Liberal).
Paul, a word of advice - don't turn your back on her.

Maiden post

2005-05-15T20:51:00.000-04:00

Not much to see here.
I finally decided to get off my butt and start posting some of my thoughts on politics, culture, religion, philosophy, whatever.

And what better time to do it than on a lazy Sunday evening in May, with school behind me, and work a fate that won't befall me until tomorrow morning?

For the first post, this is fairly disappointing, however.
Hopefully the future stuff will be better?