BUSY!! Stupid ass EE classes and Stat and just all around bullshit has kept me away from my loyal readers (insert laughs). From the comments I've been getting, you'd think no one on Earth has any opinions on these topics I present. However, that's ok, because I happen to. Although, I encourage you to the fullest to please comment on the topics so that maybe we can get something going in the form of discussion. I don't give a shit if you agree with me or not, just write your opinions.
Now, the topic at hand is going to be randomness for as long as I feel like typing. I am going to browse the
Collegian for anything I see worthy. Ok, goldmine. Here's the link to Nasir Ismail's letter entitled
Westerners target Muslims to perpetuate religious hate. I'll copy and paste relevant parts from his article. OK, to begin with:
"
he argued that Muslims in the Middle East are intolerant of anything from the West. Tell me then, if the West is tolerant of anything Islam."
I find this statement ironic, to say the least. As you will see,
Mr.Mohammad Ismail perpetuates the idea that Western society hates Islam. To begin with, Islam is the most intolerant mainstream religion in the world today. Kill all infidels, they say, or as I've posted before, "Behead those who insult Islam". Come on now Mr.Mohammad Ismail, you're not talking to a bunch of 9th graders at the Al-Mashoor Boys' Academy (his high school back in Malaysia). Islam, for the past 1500 years has been the main and controlling antagonist among the Middle East countries. But, but, the crusades!!! Right? No, the crusades were perpetuated my Muslim raids on villages along the "Holy" coast (Jerusalem et al). Islam has been the main perpetrator of all destructive, malicious and theocratic terrorism for most all of recent history. Why then, would you be so surprised that people are finally starting to be a little pissed at Islam, a religion that embraces these acts?
We'll move on to his next paragraph:
"
A Muslim was chased out of the Turkish Parliament because she wore a hijab. And the same rules apply in France. And these governments have the rights to do so because they are secular nations. That is of course not called Western intolerance toward Islam, it's called secularism. Muslims must learn to assimilate or they must leave.
In Denmark, a politician called Muslims the cancer in the society. In Greece, the Greek Orthodox Church has vehemently rejected building any mosque in Athens. In France, Muslims are five times more likely to be denied jobs. I can go on and on."
I'm not sure what the hell he is talking about here. No sources were given so I can not establish any kind of truth to his claim about Turkey but I do know this much. Turkey is 99.8% Muslim (from
CIA). So, for this incident to have ANYTHING to do with "western intolerance" is highly, 98.9% highly, unlikely. France, recently, has a pretty good reason to be a little upset with it's Muslim immigrants. I realize, though, that the French may be some of the most intolerant people, discriminating against anyone who is not "French", but does that mean Islam can riot and burn cars? Does that mean that Islam can, categorically, resort to violence, terrorism and destruction to sway views? Islam, in this light, sounds a bit like some Norse Viking tribe from ancient Sweden or Norway. The remark about Islam being a cancer of society, however rash, is not so incredibly far from the truth when you travel to certain countries that are being destroyed my Islamic terrorism. However, the statement is reprehensible and I personally wouldn't have made it.
But you still have to wonder, how can a religion of tolerance put someone on trial for converting to Christanity? This guy, Abdul Rahman, was thrown into a maximum security prison in the Islamic controlled Afghanistan because he was CAUGHT WITH A FUCKING BIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What kind of fucking religion of TOLERANCE is ISLAM???? The President of Aghanistan was wary af dropping the charges, which would have ended in his EXECUTION, because of the extreme pressure and control that the Muslim Clerics have in the government and the people. The authorities in Afghanistan were trying to make Abdul Rahman's incarceration and subsequent death penalty seem like a favor to the man by saying that if they released him, his fellow Muslim countrymen would surely kill him. Religion of Tolerance??? I think the fuck not. The Greek Orthodox Church has no hold on the authorities that would prohibit the building a mosque. But, when it comes down to it, we have recently realized that a lot of terror orginizations and terror cells are operating out of mosques. Maybe it's a precautionary thing, ya know, like putting out ant traps before summer. Some muslim clerics who ran mosques in the U.K. were on the news, right after the bombings, talking about how the blood of the infidels will run in the streets of Europe. This, coming from a Muslim holy man. Where does western society have to look for the voice of reason in Islam if their own holy men are talking about killing infidels? And again, Muslims are not the only people that are subject to the extreme French discrimination, as is described of Jews in France in this
article from the New York Times. The Jewish population haven't rioted, and they've been there for much longer. Why then, is it always Islam that resorts to violence? Isn't it weird?
He finishes with this statement:
"
The West hates, Muslims do not."
Again, do I even need to address this? As far as I know, Islam is the only religion that teaches its kids, from earliest childhood, to hate all those who are not Muslims. Islam has dug itself, forcefully, into a hole of theocratic hate and the rejection of all those who deny Islam as the one way.
I've covered this smoking ban thing before but I'm going to do it again because I have no new material yet.
Tom Mueller's
article on smoking bans covers most of the typical points of those who would have a socialist government instead of a democracy. He opens with:
"
Banning public smoking does nothing except ensure that everyone is granted his or her "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," which the editorial argues it impedes."
I'll start with the simple fact that I am a non-smoker of over 2 years now and I absolutely abhor cigarette smoke. I've even gone to lengths of getting some of my friends, one of which who smoked A LOT, to quit smoking. Now that I've sufficiently patted my own back, I'll get on to his statement. Banning public smoking does nothing but detract from the rights of smokers. Plain and simple. That's an easy one. (I can only hope you know who that picture is of)
He goes on to say:
"
I do not smoke, and I can't stand second-hand smoke. If public smoking is not outlawed, am I not forced to suck in the dangerous vapors? The Board of Opinion's assumption that I could just walk away or ask the smoker to move is laughable. Has anyone tried to ask a smoker to move? Most of the time you will be greeted by a smug glance or you will be otherwise ignored. Furthermore, if I am forced to move, I have been robbed of my liberty to stand where I wish."
I understand his general disgust with smoking. It is sick. It makes you sick, and it kills you. But you CAN always move. You have the liberty to stand anywhere you want, true. So does a smoker. His rights can not be taken away just so that you can be appeased. When I wait for the bus in the morning to go to EE492, I usually stand by the street where the Blue Loop picks you up on College and Allen. Has anyone stood there for more than 5 minutes and not been bombarded with the disgusting smell and toxic gas that the busses spew forth? What do you do when that happens? You move. To Tom, that would be a gross infraction on his basic rights. So, should we ban cars and busses? I realize the analogy is a bit far fetched but it is, in its simplest form, the exact same thing Tom is saying. And it also happens to be just as asinine.
He finishes with an ironic statement:
"
Regarding more pressing issues, including those that don't kill millions, I agree that, "it's time the government butts out.""
I suspect that if you are even remotely educated, you will see the irony in his statement. Does he really agree with the statement "the government should but out"? I mean, cause let's get serious here. He's
asking that the government enforce something, become bigger and not
but out. I don't know, maybe I just don't get it. I did, though, do a little research on this topic and came across something interesting and scary at the same time.
Calabasas, California has initiated a
public smoking ban. Here is just one thing the ban does, "
Smoking in one's car is allowed, unless the windows are open and someone nearby might be affected.". Are you fucking kidding me? Seriously....WTF!
I was recently browsing the
PBS:Frontline site and came across an episode entitled "
A Class Divided". It is about a third grade teacher (Jane Elliot) and her students from a small all-white Iowa town that did a study on racism and it's effects on a "micro-society". Here is a small section of the transcripts from the film:
Jane Elliott: Do you think you do? No, I don't think you'd know how that felt unless you had been through it, would you? It might be interesting to judge people today by the color of their eyes...would you like to try this?
Children: Yeah!
Jane Elliott: Sounds like fun, doesn't it? Since I'm the teacher and I have blue eyes, I think maybe the blue-eyed people should be on top the first day.
Boy: And up here?
Jane Elliott: I mean the blue-eyed people are the better people in this room.
Boy: Huh uh.
Jane Elliott: Oh yes they are--blue-eyed people are smarter than brown-eyed people.
Children: Huh uh.
Brian: My dad isn't that...stupid.
Jane Elliott: Is your dad brown-eyed?
Brian: Yeah.
Jane Elliott: One day you came to school and you told us that he kicked you.
Brian: He did.
Jane Elliott: Do you think a blue-eyed father would kick his son?
My dad's blue-eyed, he's never kicked me. Ray's dad is blue-eyed, he's never kicked him. Rex's dad is blue-eyed, he's never kicked him. This is a fact. Blue-eyed people are better than brown-eyed people. Are you brown-eyed or blue-eyed?
Brian: Blue.
Jane Elliott: Why are you shaking your head?
Brian: I don't know.
Jane Elliott: Are you sure that you're right? Why? What makes you sure that you're right?
Brian: I don't know.
Jane Elliott: The blue-eyed people get five extra minutes of recess, while the brown-eyed people have to stay in.
What this woman did is prolific. You should really watch this film. It's absolutely amazing how these children react to this idea and the lesson they learn in the end. This should be done in ever third grade class in America and across the world.
Did you know that the square root of two is an
irrational number? The proof is right here.
