This is funny, but full of truths:
I wonder what Israel's borders would look like if they had someone to negotiate with.
June 17, 2010
June 8, 2010
Helen Thomas and Whoopi Goldberg: Hypocrisy and Ignorance
I'm not into beating up on 89 year old women, but Helen Thomas' comments have no age barrier, they are shared by a vast amount of hypocritical people (many of whom are Muslims).
In case you live under a rock and only visit atheist blog sites, here is what Helen Thomas said:
I find it mind numbing when Muslims or Arabs in the West state that Jews should go home.
Here is the hypocrisy in a nutshell: There are over 8 million people of Lebanese descent living in Brazil alone today. Why is it OK for Arabs to migrate to the West, but prior to 1948, it was wrong for Jews to migrate to a non sovereign land that was 75% swamp and/or desert, to add to an already Jewish presence there and to escape anti-semitism?
Whether it is Brazil or Dearborn, Michigan, when Arabs show up in droves, the life on the indigenous people are affected, the culture changes. But this escapes many Muslims and Arabs, because to them, it is OK for Muslims to go to Western lands and take over pocket by pocket, but it is a crime for anyone, especially Jews, to live and govern on "Muslim" land.
Demographics change everywhere, Dearborn, Brazil, Israel, etc. It seems it is OK as long as it doesn't involve Jews.
One more point. Over 65% of Jews in Israel today were born in Israel. No matter how you slice it, whether you are completely against immigrants or not, these Jews are home, they aren't from Poland or Germany.
Now for Whoopi. Yesterday on The View, she was sort of defending Helen Thomas' comments. But the stupidest thing she said was, "For many years, there were not Jews in Israel."
It was disappointing to me to see that Joy Behar actually nodded when she made that ignorant point, because I know Behar gets it most of the time.
However, it does illustrate how misinformed many people are about the history of Israel. Jews have always been present, though at times, the numbers were tiny (but so was the total population there).
When people believe that, I can see how they can lean to the Palestinian side in many cases. It would be the same argument as the white man coming to America and taking over the land from the Native Indians (who took the land over from the European Clovis, but that is another story).
But reality is that in 1880 there were approximately 450,000 people living in the region, 20,000 were Jewish. Less than half a million people living in a land that now has 5 million Jews and 4 million Arabs (including the West Bank and Gaza).
In other words, it is equal to a small city turning into a big city, where the people who migrated there were majority Jewish (but not by much, as many Arabs also migrated there once Jews established a good job market). The land was not sovereign until 1948. And to put things into total perspective, the people who were mostly affected by the original conflict in 1948 today are either dead or in their 80's.
Lastly, I received an excellent comment on my last blog piece. It is worth putting in print, because it is from someone from the Far Left who gets it:
the_last_name_left · 16 hours ago
In case you live under a rock and only visit atheist blog sites, here is what Helen Thomas said:
I find it mind numbing when Muslims or Arabs in the West state that Jews should go home.
Here is the hypocrisy in a nutshell: There are over 8 million people of Lebanese descent living in Brazil alone today. Why is it OK for Arabs to migrate to the West, but prior to 1948, it was wrong for Jews to migrate to a non sovereign land that was 75% swamp and/or desert, to add to an already Jewish presence there and to escape anti-semitism?
Whether it is Brazil or Dearborn, Michigan, when Arabs show up in droves, the life on the indigenous people are affected, the culture changes. But this escapes many Muslims and Arabs, because to them, it is OK for Muslims to go to Western lands and take over pocket by pocket, but it is a crime for anyone, especially Jews, to live and govern on "Muslim" land.
Demographics change everywhere, Dearborn, Brazil, Israel, etc. It seems it is OK as long as it doesn't involve Jews.
One more point. Over 65% of Jews in Israel today were born in Israel. No matter how you slice it, whether you are completely against immigrants or not, these Jews are home, they aren't from Poland or Germany.
Now for Whoopi. Yesterday on The View, she was sort of defending Helen Thomas' comments. But the stupidest thing she said was, "For many years, there were not Jews in Israel."
It was disappointing to me to see that Joy Behar actually nodded when she made that ignorant point, because I know Behar gets it most of the time.
However, it does illustrate how misinformed many people are about the history of Israel. Jews have always been present, though at times, the numbers were tiny (but so was the total population there).
When people believe that, I can see how they can lean to the Palestinian side in many cases. It would be the same argument as the white man coming to America and taking over the land from the Native Indians (who took the land over from the European Clovis, but that is another story).
But reality is that in 1880 there were approximately 450,000 people living in the region, 20,000 were Jewish. Less than half a million people living in a land that now has 5 million Jews and 4 million Arabs (including the West Bank and Gaza).
In other words, it is equal to a small city turning into a big city, where the people who migrated there were majority Jewish (but not by much, as many Arabs also migrated there once Jews established a good job market). The land was not sovereign until 1948. And to put things into total perspective, the people who were mostly affected by the original conflict in 1948 today are either dead or in their 80's.
Lastly, I received an excellent comment on my last blog piece. It is worth putting in print, because it is from someone from the Far Left who gets it:
the_last_name_left · 16 hours ago
I feel like the only leftie who sees this "humanitarian activism" as the provocation it so obviously is. Everyone is being played - and they've fallen for it.
It's quite astonishing to me see the extent of (left) anti-semitism - I have never been so aware of its scope, depth and threat before. It's really disturbing.
Every time it's "Israel attacked the boat"......and the ferocious beatings with metal bars of the soldiers was "self-defense". Yet intercepting shipping - to ensure it isn't rearming Hamas - is not legitimate self-defense. Nor is retaliation against Hamas provocation of firing rockets at Israeli civilians - war crimes according to the Goldstone report (which people only know accuses Israel of war crimes).
Under such circumstances Israel has no right of self-defense -- and anything Hamas does is always self-defense and justifiable by some historic slight, real or imagined. There is no balance - there's a massive Israeli/jewish exceptionalism - prejudice.
The (only) problem boat of the flotilla had passengers including children and elderly folk - and they took it upon themselves to disregard many warnings from the IDF whom had promised to deliver the aid, so long as it passed inspection at Ashdod. But the flotilla's priority was not attempting to deliver the aid - because the flotilla decided to ignore IDF entreaty to submit, and attempt to break the blockade - despite repeated warnings from the IDF that the ship would be placing itself - including the children and the elderly - at risk. This is the responsibility of the ship's crew - whatever the legal technicalities or the history or whatever. You listen to people with guns - especially when you have children on board - and especially when you are "peaceful humanitarians". It's utter bullshit to claim they weren't obliged to stop, on some technical argument about legality or otherwise of the blockade etc. especially when Israel had promised to deliver the aid - which amounted to one day's worth of the aid which Israel already expedites to Gaza.
A very similar event happened during the Sri Lankan/Tamil war in 2009 - except a french aid ship was boarded and prevented reaching port to deliver aid to Tamils. The Sri Lankans were far more obstructive over aid for the Tamils than the Israelis have been over this flotilla - and yet where was the worldwide condemnation? There was absolute silence - who is even aware it happened? Where were the cries that Sri Lankans were Nazis? NOWHERE.
Similarly we have the hypocrisy of Erdogan supported by the useful idiots everywhere, apparently completely ignorant of Turkey's attacks on the Kurds.....in very similar circumstances to Israel/Palestine conflict. But again - met with near absolute SILENCE.
hundred of thousands of Tamils were held in detention camps - surrounded by barbed wire - a real prison. But silence.
On the plight of Gaza and its poverty - we need be careful to distinguish the extent of poverty and suffering which is directly attributable to Israel. One way to assess that is to compare Gaza with other states whom Israel has no effect upon - for example, Yemen.
According to UN/NGO statistics, “More than 10 percent of children in Gaza are chronically malnourished,” said WHO officer Mahmoud Daher in Gaza, reporting a slight increase over 2008." Dreadful, right? But what about Yemen? "A 2006 report by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said Yemen had very high levels of food insecurity and that more than ****one third of its population was chronically undernourished****."
Why is every failure of Gaza and Hamas Israel's fault? Anyone can accept a degree of Israeli responsibility, surely - but the simple blind acceptance of complete Israeli responsibility at every turn - whilst the Nazi-sympathizing Protocols of Zion-publishing Hamas get a free pass, every turn. It's myopic, outrageous and dangerous. I'm appalled - especially by the supposed left. I expect it from the lunatics, but from almost the entire gamut of the left? Wow. Shocking.
June 3, 2010
Humanitarians For Gaza: What A Con Job
If feel sorry for all those gullible lefties (the ones who sincerely don't hate Jews) who buy into the charade. In the meantime, everyone can enjoy this:
For the truth about the Flotilla, and the hypocrisy of different nations, including of course Islamic nations, check out The Elder of Ziyon's blog.
They actually named a boat The Rachel Corrie? I guess it will bring the Gazans some pancake mix. If you believe the con artists, the Gazans haven't had a real breakfast since the Jews were ethnically cleansed from that region.
For the truth about the Flotilla, and the hypocrisy of different nations, including of course Islamic nations, check out The Elder of Ziyon's blog.
They actually named a boat The Rachel Corrie? I guess it will bring the Gazans some pancake mix. If you believe the con artists, the Gazans haven't had a real breakfast since the Jews were ethnically cleansed from that region.
May 20, 2010
The Teabaggers, The Texas Board Of Education and The Founding Fathers
I know I'm just a Canadian so I should just go mind my own business about what is going down in the US of A today, but I won't.
First The Teabaggers. My perception on this crap is that there are two types of Teabaggers: The Libertarian Extreme and The Christian Fundamentalists.
The Christian Fundamentalists are upset because their ridiculous beliefs are being rightfully marginalized, so some even pretend to know something about Fiscal Policy, it is pretty funny actually. It is plain to see that the overwhelming majority of these protesters barely know how a credit card works let alone the benefits and negatives of things like socialized health care. What they care about is making abortions illegal, putting God in school books, getting rid of evilution as much as possible from being taught as a standalone answer to life on earth (putting it mildly), and getting prayer placed everywhere possible.
All of this is based on their hypocritical love of Jesus. I say hypocritical because, for example, there is no way Jesus (who was fictional by the way) would allow the Arizona law to go through if he was an Arizona governor.
The other half of Teabaggers are The Paulian types who believe the government should run magically without much money, without even thinking about the consequences of such a State. For instance, most human beings are too irresponsible to deal with their own health insurance. There will always be a need for welfare for the sick and the single mommies, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. No system is perfect, but human beings need help. If not, there will be lots of malnourished kids and people. And I'm sorry, but I don't buy into fixing these problems with private donations and charity. It just won't work.
I think the fact that Obama is black has made it easier for both type of Teabaggers to get this movement going. I'm not saying that the USA is full of racists, but what I'm saying is that it is maybe a quarter full of racists.
The Paulian Teabagger types have been around for ages, but the reason they are getting so much momentum is partly due to Obama's skin color, and the semi alliance with the Loony Palinites has given them numbers. A bad economy hasn't hurt either. Historically, when there is a bad economy, scapegoats are found. This time around, the Jews were left alone:) Now it is focused on the black Prez, bigger government, and the "Liberal" agenda.
The term Liberal agenda cracks me up.
Now for The Texas Board Of Education. This Don McElroy guy really pisses me off. History has no ifs.....well, apparently it does in Texas. McElroy is a creationist slimeball who is trying to put God into text books. He is also cherry picking history. It is sort of a mine quoting exercise that evolution denialists are known for.
To me, this is such a crock that in the year 2010 something like this can happen in a Westernized country. But then again, evolution acceptance is very low in the US compared to all other nations in the Western World, only beating out Turkey (Turkey is in the West?).
Now about the Founding Fathers. Yes, they were the smartest dudes around at the time. Some of their writing were exceptionally well thought out and insightful. But lets remember, they were probably amongst the very few who even knew how to read back when the USA was founded.
It is evident from their writings that they were strongly for separation of church and state, despite the mind numbing ignorance of those who state differently. The majority were not keen on the Christian God, and they fell in the Deist category.
Imagine if they had knowledge of evolution which came a century later? I'm guessing they would have been atheists. I wonder how that would have worked in 1776. British News Headline: British Army Defeated By Godless Yankees. Would the Americans back then have accepted an atheist Jefferson etc?
Here is another thing. These dudes were apparently OK with slavery. From for all except Blacky. Is that in the Constitution?
So no, they didn't have all the info. They might have been smart, but there is a vast amount of people around today at least as bright if not smarter. Times have changed. The King isn't about to send his soldiers to your home to hassle you for no good reason, so you really don't have to have a gun for that purpose.
I don't even think their intentions regarding separation of church and state or their belief in God or unbelief in God is even relevant anymore. I think the facts found since 1776 in the field of biology and just plain logic should make a case for what is right and what is just plain silliness.
It is silly to put God in the classroom. Prove God, and then he can have a seat.
Funny Cartoon from Joe's Big Blog:
First The Teabaggers. My perception on this crap is that there are two types of Teabaggers: The Libertarian Extreme and The Christian Fundamentalists.
The Christian Fundamentalists are upset because their ridiculous beliefs are being rightfully marginalized, so some even pretend to know something about Fiscal Policy, it is pretty funny actually. It is plain to see that the overwhelming majority of these protesters barely know how a credit card works let alone the benefits and negatives of things like socialized health care. What they care about is making abortions illegal, putting God in school books, getting rid of evilution as much as possible from being taught as a standalone answer to life on earth (putting it mildly), and getting prayer placed everywhere possible.
All of this is based on their hypocritical love of Jesus. I say hypocritical because, for example, there is no way Jesus (who was fictional by the way) would allow the Arizona law to go through if he was an Arizona governor.
The other half of Teabaggers are The Paulian types who believe the government should run magically without much money, without even thinking about the consequences of such a State. For instance, most human beings are too irresponsible to deal with their own health insurance. There will always be a need for welfare for the sick and the single mommies, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. No system is perfect, but human beings need help. If not, there will be lots of malnourished kids and people. And I'm sorry, but I don't buy into fixing these problems with private donations and charity. It just won't work.
I think the fact that Obama is black has made it easier for both type of Teabaggers to get this movement going. I'm not saying that the USA is full of racists, but what I'm saying is that it is maybe a quarter full of racists.
The Paulian Teabagger types have been around for ages, but the reason they are getting so much momentum is partly due to Obama's skin color, and the semi alliance with the Loony Palinites has given them numbers. A bad economy hasn't hurt either. Historically, when there is a bad economy, scapegoats are found. This time around, the Jews were left alone:) Now it is focused on the black Prez, bigger government, and the "Liberal" agenda.
The term Liberal agenda cracks me up.
Now for The Texas Board Of Education. This Don McElroy guy really pisses me off. History has no ifs.....well, apparently it does in Texas. McElroy is a creationist slimeball who is trying to put God into text books. He is also cherry picking history. It is sort of a mine quoting exercise that evolution denialists are known for.
To me, this is such a crock that in the year 2010 something like this can happen in a Westernized country. But then again, evolution acceptance is very low in the US compared to all other nations in the Western World, only beating out Turkey (Turkey is in the West?).
Now about the Founding Fathers. Yes, they were the smartest dudes around at the time. Some of their writing were exceptionally well thought out and insightful. But lets remember, they were probably amongst the very few who even knew how to read back when the USA was founded.
It is evident from their writings that they were strongly for separation of church and state, despite the mind numbing ignorance of those who state differently. The majority were not keen on the Christian God, and they fell in the Deist category.
Imagine if they had knowledge of evolution which came a century later? I'm guessing they would have been atheists. I wonder how that would have worked in 1776. British News Headline: British Army Defeated By Godless Yankees. Would the Americans back then have accepted an atheist Jefferson etc?
Here is another thing. These dudes were apparently OK with slavery. From for all except Blacky. Is that in the Constitution?
So no, they didn't have all the info. They might have been smart, but there is a vast amount of people around today at least as bright if not smarter. Times have changed. The King isn't about to send his soldiers to your home to hassle you for no good reason, so you really don't have to have a gun for that purpose.
I don't even think their intentions regarding separation of church and state or their belief in God or unbelief in God is even relevant anymore. I think the facts found since 1776 in the field of biology and just plain logic should make a case for what is right and what is just plain silliness.
It is silly to put God in the classroom. Prove God, and then he can have a seat.
Funny Cartoon from Joe's Big Blog:
May 8, 2010
Neanderthal Gene Found In Non Africans
It wasn't that long ago that the layman community believed that Neanderthals were a link between humans and chimps. I found a 1990 Almanac that gives a time line that states that 35,000 years ago, Neanderthals were replaced by Homo-Sapiens (Cro Magnon Man).
I stress that I'm not a scientist, but here is my take on what happened:
The rise in DNA research has put that idea to rest that Neanderthals were the link from chimp like humans to humans. Just like man's branch diverged from the monkey branch 25 million years ago, and just like the chimp branch and human branch diverged 5-7 million years ago, modern man and Neanderthal diverged, possibly as much as 1 million years, as it appears they were the descendant of the first out of African wave of what I like to call near human ancestors.
The next significant human wave, this time, the descendants of modern humans out of Africa happened between 60,000 to 90,000 years ago.
What researchers appeared to find is that our ancestors and Neanderthals started making out with each other around 60,000 years ago. And it looks like some of the Neanderthal genes took (and were probably beneficial) and are now in everyone whose ancestors left Africa in the second wave. Must have something to do with handling colder weather and stuff like that.
Those who are descended from the line that didn't leave Africa, show no Neanderthal genes.
This could have dangerous implications for racists who, if they accept they have Neanderthal blood in them, and are OK with that, can start making analogies that Europeans (2% Neanderthal) and chimps (3% difference) are not very far off the difference between Europeans and Africans.
One thing is for sure, the Neanderthal genes seems to limit one's athletic abilities compared to those who don't have the genes. But of course, there are reasons for this, and it all has to do with what is beneficial in each ecosystem over time.
Now for some real science on the subject:
I stress that I'm not a scientist, but here is my take on what happened:
The rise in DNA research has put that idea to rest that Neanderthals were the link from chimp like humans to humans. Just like man's branch diverged from the monkey branch 25 million years ago, and just like the chimp branch and human branch diverged 5-7 million years ago, modern man and Neanderthal diverged, possibly as much as 1 million years, as it appears they were the descendant of the first out of African wave of what I like to call near human ancestors.
The next significant human wave, this time, the descendants of modern humans out of Africa happened between 60,000 to 90,000 years ago.
What researchers appeared to find is that our ancestors and Neanderthals started making out with each other around 60,000 years ago. And it looks like some of the Neanderthal genes took (and were probably beneficial) and are now in everyone whose ancestors left Africa in the second wave. Must have something to do with handling colder weather and stuff like that.
Those who are descended from the line that didn't leave Africa, show no Neanderthal genes.
This could have dangerous implications for racists who, if they accept they have Neanderthal blood in them, and are OK with that, can start making analogies that Europeans (2% Neanderthal) and chimps (3% difference) are not very far off the difference between Europeans and Africans.
One thing is for sure, the Neanderthal genes seems to limit one's athletic abilities compared to those who don't have the genes. But of course, there are reasons for this, and it all has to do with what is beneficial in each ecosystem over time.
Now for some real science on the subject:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)