Mahatir's speech and the Jews: some thoughts

Thanks to Damian he provides a link to Mahatir's notorious speech where he decries at how the Jews rule the world by proxy.

I shook my head and remarked to my parents that I'm back in the 30s. Actually, no it's contemporary Moselm societies that are trapped in the 30s.

I finally read the full transcript and I must say that if he simply avoid the temptation to spew the rancid anti-Semitism like an addict smokes his crack pipe, Mahatir's analyses of what's wrong with present day Islamic societies isn't totally dunderheaded. He's quite right that that the Islamic doctors of theology and judges eventally choked any skpetical, critical or scientific inquiries and the societies fell further behind. Unfortunately the cure is all wrong.

Leaving aside the rancid anti-Semitism, which is already the first prescriptive error, Mahatir is awfully fixated on weaponry. Frankly I just don't get how a civilization like the Islamic which suffers from so many ills, thinks that acquiring modern weaponry will solve its self esteem problems or make it respected within the world. Moving on to his other themes, I'm rather skeptical that Islamic societies can reform themselves. The problem is ultimately that Islam is simply uncomfortable with the Other and doesn't know how to cope except through oppresion- the dimmitude; violence- the attacks on religious and ethnic minorities; through envy- It's the Jews, Americans, British everyone else who thwarts the Moselms' place in the sun.

Nonetheless Matatir's speech still actually contains some astute observations about what's wrong with Islmaic societies, proposes some reasonable solutions like to reembrace learning. Yet the positives in the speech are marred by sin. The sin of hate which disorders his thinking, corrupts his solutions, nullifies the sincereity. Indeed, his discourse is a classical illustration of how evil is a perversion of good

Polly Tonybee: a-tu peur du pape?

Andrew Sullivan and Iraqi weapons of mass destruction

Today Sullivan is taking on Maureen Dowd and the New York times over the issue of Bush's and the Administration's statements about the threat imminence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

What immediately caught my attention was how he place the word imminent in quote marks. Once again Sullivan is debliberately distorting the understood definition of the adjective. A threat is either imminent or it's not. Placing the word in quotes to signy potential threat that hasn't yet materialized is a Clintonian parsing of language.

Moreover, Sullivan cites E.J. Dionne's article back in Feburary 2003 as evidence that the liberals saw compatbility between the 3 goals of ridding Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, deposing Saddam and bring democracy to the country. Unfortunately, Sullivan doesn't respond to Dionne's main point: that the Administration's conflict between whether the goals are complementary or whether 1 should be principal sent mixed signals that there far more impassioned debate than was let on. The ambivalence certainly confused allied countries as well as the Iraqis.

Nonetheless what's clear is that Iraq most likely didn't have weapons of mass destruction. Sullivan forgets that everyone waited in anticipation when the Coalition forces crossed the so called red zone surrounding Baghdad and nothing happened. It was at that point that I realized that the intelligence was profoundly defective. Indeed, even though during teh drive up to the capital, the fact that Coalition forces found NBC protection suits and atrophine scattered all over the place didn't necessarily signfy prepartion to launch chemical weaopns. On the contrary such battlefield litter clearly showed a totally disorganized, demoralized, outsmarted enemy military.

So it's not a question of whether the anti-war or the pro war proponents score rhethorical victories but whether or not the intelligence was massaged to fit a priori convictions about Iraq to fulfil more ambitious goals.

Le Grand-prix du Canada:le saga continue

De la mort premeditada i judicial de Terri Schiavo

Als Estat-units hi ha un cas que provoca molt�ssm desguts als cercles cat�lics i religiosos. Es tracta de la mort premditada i judicial de Terri Schiavo. Fa 9 anys que Terri sofr� una hemorr�gia cerebral a 27 anys.

Ning� sap exactament com a passat car la dona era en bon salut. Algunes lleg�es insinuen que el marit li pegava i un del assalts fou tan violent que provoc� sa condici�. Fa anys que el marit volia terminar els tractaments perque pretendia que era en un estat o sia vegetal. El problema es que no ho semblava en ni un ni l'altre.

Literalment, el marit magintzemava un jutge que li autoritizaria i finalment el trob�. Ahir, els metges tregueren el tub d'alimentaci� Per� la sitauaci� es complica per que d'una banda el pares s'han lluitats- i ho continuen encara que els metges treguessin el tub- per prevenir la mort de llur filla.

Mentrestant, vull anar endarrere per donaralguns factors m�s sobre elcas. Es veu que el marit s'ha trobat una amigueta no gaire apr�s de la condici� de sa muller. Hi ha una possibilitat que s'ha enriquit de mander injustifiada quan prengu� el diners dels servis socials p�blics per la cura de sa muller. Per� el pitjor es que el marit prohibia que un capell� visit�s a Terri (es cat�lica) i els pares.

Que demano dels meus lectors es que els cre�ents resen per tothom involcrat enaquest cas; els no-cre�ents d'avocar sobre la dignitat de la persona en qualsevulla condici�.

Clour� aquest article amb una pregunta ret�rica: �Com potTerri Schiavo possiblement amen�ar al estat de Florida, al sistema judicial, al hospital per que tots els poders p�blics la volen morta?

25^� anniversari

Avui es l'anniversari argentat del papa. �Felicitat i per molts anys! Sullivan pot dir que volgui sobre Joan Pau per� penso que el papa ser� vist com a un dels gran figures del segle XX i del primenc del XXI pels historidors futurs.

Ja ho es pel seu rol a la defunci� del comunisme. Per� permi son la gran quanitat de enc�cliques que ha escrit durant del seu pontificat. Molts parlen de la femonl�guia de la persona. Mai he ent�s realment que significa per� si entec que es tracta de les persones qua individuals poesseixen una dignitat intocables, imprescriptble i incessible. Doncs, l'ec�nomia, la societat, cultura i l'estat serveixen pel home i no al contrari com el segle passat demonstr� de manera rotunda. Si hi han 2 falls del seu ponficat es que no ha pogut reunir els ort�doxos per que el cristaisme respiri amb els dos pulmons i el escand�l dels abusos sexuals a la esg�lsia estadaunidenca.

France and francopessisme: A comment

Donald Sensing post an interesting article on francopessisme In general I concour with his abnalysis except for the last paragraph. I don't see a latent link between francopessisme and pro Americanism. As some of teh Reverand's commentators judicious pointed out: the same trends afflicting the France are also present in the U.S.

Further, if the French do look at America, they won't necessarily directly adopt the American model. In fact, the French will be highly influenced by how Quebec undertake its own reforms under the guide of 'reengineering the state.' Indeed there's a syncronicity between both French regions. One of the themes in the last Quebec election was a growing dissatisfaction with the 'Quebec model' of a higly activist state. France is understandly exasperated that they're stuck and see signs of decline.

Quebec, geographically and intellectually is wellplaced to absorb the Anglopshere's own experience with state and economic reforms through its own cultural references and eventually diffuse them to the rest of the Francophonie. So in a maner of speaking, Quebec will act as France's lab. Of course France will go directly to the sources in America and adapt them under French conditions. Still, I'd keep my eyes open on the interaction between Quebec, France and how they'll intermediate, alone and together, the American model through their common cultural-political hertiages.

Le convoi diplomatique am�rican et l'attenat � la bombe

Les terroristes palestiniens ont commis une erreur fatale en faire sautr une bombe � un convoi diplomatique. Non seulement, c'est un acte de guerre qui obligera les Am�ricans � se ranger aux c�t�s d'Isra�liens mais �galement les Europ�ens.

Ces derniers cesseront d'indulger Arafat et ses complices et ils exigeront beaucoup de justifications de compte de l'Autorit� palestinienne surtout o� a disparu l'argent octroy� aux Palestiniens.

Florida more Francophone than Ontario

This article (In French) is a real stunner. Flordia is now the second place in North America after Quebec where the most French is spoken.

The state now displaces Ontario. In a way it's unsurprising, Flordia is finally taking its place as the hub between North and South America as well as being the confluence between Franco-, Anglo-, Hispano- and Luso- cultures of the Americas. Let's not forget that Louisiana is next door and while it was French for some time, Louis XV transfered it to the Spanish. It was very unpopular in Louisiana but the Spanish colonial period doesn't seem to have harmed the state's French chracter.

In the case of the Francophones, I guess it's proof that the Quebecois, in particular, are flexing their economic influence within North America as well as showing confidence in their survival as a distinct ethno-linguistic group within the continent. SO they're opening up to the wider world. I'm very curious as to what the implications will be but one thing is certain, Flordia will be the next distinct society within North America.

Imminent threat: Sullivan goes Clintonian

I must say that I'm utterly stunned at Andrew Sullivan's latest post about Iraqi's weapons of mass destruction.

After he cites an in extenso quote from Richard Perle, Sullivan writes this jaw dropper:

So the administration did not regard the Iraqi threat as "imminent" in the usual sense of that word. as the NSC document had it, "As a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats [America's enemies and their pursuit of WMD] before they are fully formed.

Sullivan has gone Clintonian and has maliciously perverted the plain definition in English of imminent. According to my English dictionary, the word connotes: about to happen; threateningly, impending. All these synonyms signify very close to the present as in now. It's the idential connotations in the Romance languages. Yet, Sullivan wants to persuade us that imminent now means som potential threat that's not yet fully formed. How dare Sullivan restort to Clintonian parsing of a well known word whose meaning has been fixed for a long time and clearly understood by all.

Logically, the Kay report in no way vindicates the Bush administration's claim that Iraq represented an imminent threat with its weapons of mass destruction. The growing dishonesty of pundits such as Sullivan will only harden the attitudes of both allies and enemies to oppose future American policy goals due to the growing ethical unease over preemptive war.

�Mol�c: rebeu vostre sacrifici!

The rising Canadian dollar:smarten up