The Truthers are still out there...

On my way into work yesterday I was listening to John Oakley on Talk640 and he had a guest who was going to debate any Truther out there. I didn't get to listen to that segment unfortunately as it would have been interesting.

I still can't believe that there are people out there buying the nonsense arguments that suggest 9/11 was an inside job, that the planes weren't planes, that United 93 was shot down, that the World Trade Center buildings were brought down by explosives and the lot. Even the most well thought out conspiracy about 9/11 can be explained typically by simple facts.

If you go to YouTube there's actually a great channel with videos that disprove every conspiracy theory you can think of that has been presented to suggest that 9/11 was anything but what we all know it really was. You can check it out here: TheTruthAbout911

But, I typically refer people to a fantastic argument that was made by Penn Jillette on Penn & Teller's Bullshit! whereby he says it like it is: the Watergate break-in disproves it all. After all, if the government couldn't hide a simple hotel break-in, how could they hide a conspiracy involving every single layer of government? Check it out here.

And as I mentioned in a previous posting, if 40,000 top secret documents about the War in Afghanistan can end up on Wikileaks, how is it that we haven't seen a single document indicating any government involvement in 9/11?

Some people need to find themselves something else to devote their time to. Maybe looking for cures to mental diseases?

The Double Standard: Bibles VS Quran

I was doing a little light reading today and it is hard to not see the glaring double standard of both the press and the Muslim world in regards to this week's Quran BBQ brouhaha.

In terms of the Muslim world, I found this great blog posting detailing how Muslims the world over frequently desecrate the Bible. (h/t Planck's Constant) I would like to hear the political and religious leaders of those countries blast the Muslims who carried out such acts.

Fat chance. Surely this is another case of, "Do as I say, not as I do." Muslims have no problem threatening violence if their holy book is burned. The Bible? Meh...

And in terms of the media, I don't remember the media or Obama coming out decrying last year's Halloween Bible Burning in North Carolina. After all, it's such an affront to the religious to desecrate the holy writings. The media would clearly not ignore this one.

Right?

Somehow I can't find a single mention of Obama decrying this clear desecration. I don't see a single article online from MSNBC or CNN that even mentions this. Surprise, surprise.

Where's ACTRA on the censoring of Sun TV?

Last year the arts community -- especially ACTRA, the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists -- came down hard on Stephen Harper's government Bill C-10 which would in part effectively cut funding to artistic endeavors that were contrary to public interests. Some, such as director David Cronenberg, went so far as to call this censorship.

Bill C-10 in no way would prevent artists from creating, displaying or performing their works. It was simply telling them that they would have to get support from other sources. That is not censorship. If it was censorship then the government would effectively have a responsibility to fund all artists on demand.

I'm an artist. And I get it.

But where is ACTRA and all these arts community figures now that Sun TV (erroneously called "Fox News North") is under attack by the media on all sides? Where is the arts community when we have so many people calling for this private, non-public funded news outlet to be prevented access to the airwaves?

From Wikipedia: "Censorship is the suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body."

Censorship is not the denial of funding from one source. It is suppression. No artist was being suppressed from performing or creating under Bill C-10. Sure they would have to find alternate sources to create their artistic works at the level of expense that would be optimum. But that's not suppression.

Suppression is when we have the media demanding a voice to be silenced. Suppression is when we have politicians wanting voices to be silenced.

And what has the arts community said against these expressions of desired censorship? Well, I'm more likely to hear the birds chirping outside ACTRA's downtown headquarters while standing beside one of Emirates A-380's when taking off on a runway at Toronto's Pearson airport than hear one of their representatives on TV defending Sun TV's free expression.

Why? Because they aren't the champions against censorship they claim to be.

Hypocrites.

Could the Quran BBQ get any worse? You better believe it!

Earlier today word came down that Rev. Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center had backed down from his plans to roast the Quran on the anniversary of 9/11. For many people this is a positive development. It certainly was for me.

But you always have to read the fine print. And the whole series of activities that led to Rev. Jones' announcement today stinks.

Rev. Jones met with FBI officials today for half an hour of conversations. About what? Nobody's saying. Not Rev. Jones, not the FBI. Why not?

If the FBI was simply reiterating what everybody else has been saying about intolerance, insensitivity or the threat of violent activities in reaction to Jones' plans, there wouldn't be any reason to be secretive. And that leaves really only two realistic possibilities.

The first is that the FBI was informing Rev. Jones of a potential threat to his own life or other specific parties involved in the book burning. With general threats of violence already known, the only possible violent threats that might sway Jones would be specific, close and personal.

I don't buy it. If there were some eminent threat against Rev. Jones, he would be screaming it to every camera out there as an example that proves his point of view surrounding Islam being a violent religion. He'd want the public to know and the FBI would not be able to stop him.

The other option is that the FBI itself is coercing Rev. Jones into not taking action. This would not surprise me considering the man pulling the FBI's strings -- President Barack Obama -- himself has heavily criticized Rev. Jones' actions and given every indication of what he wants.

What kind of threat the FBI would make is anybody's guess. But the far left has criticized the FBI for supposed pressure tactics going all the way back to the Hoover years. Does it seem likely that the FBI is incapable? Hardly.

Now, some will point out the apparent deal to move the New York Park51 development that Rev. Jones trumpeted first between himself and the Park51 developers -- who denied it -- and later with Florida Imam Muhammad Musri -- who also denied any deal. In the face of both parties denying what Rev. Jones claims, Jones has stated that he was lied to but was still postponing the Quran burning until he can talk to these parties.

But who really believes that Rev. Jones -- who himself has called Islam the devil's religion -- would remain in a holding pattern based on what he has now called a lie only so he can deal with representatives of a religion he clearly has no respect for and in fact has a great hatred towards? Does that make any sense whatsoever?

If I was just called a liar on national TV by a person I believe was evil but who I supposedly had a deal with a few seconds ago, I would be fuming! And if I was the type of man Rev. Jones is, I might have burned a Quran right then and there out of spite. But the reaction of Jones tells me that he has other concerns on his plate that lie outside the realm of Muslim representatives that he obviously has no interest in.

Considering that the only other party to put real pressure on him today was the FBI, the process of elimination on whose influence is making the difference is fairly simple. If true, it would be clear that the government -- from the top down -- has focused its sites on this US citizen to prevent him from speaking his mind or performing actions that he has every legal right to do.

The exact opposite of what has happened in New York City in regards to the Park51 development!

The whole thing stinks. The layers of hypocrisy on both sides of this issue is just about enough to make me throw my hands up in the air and scream, "A plague upon both your houses!"

But the completely lack of leadership on the part of Barack Obama and the US government in general is nothing short of pathetic. Seventy percent of Americans don't want to see the Park51 complex developed near Ground Zero. And instead of either bowing to the will of the people or trying to lead them in a different direction -- basically showing a little backbone and standing on principle either way -- Barack Obama has once again shown himself to be the indecisive, non-committal coward that he is.

He could have gotten all of these parties into one room to talk with a snap of his fingers. The complete lack of guidance on this highly divisive issue is the final proof that Barack Obama has absolutely none of the leadership or moral character that it takes to be a leader.

Once again, he votes present.

"Do as I say, not as I do."

It amazes me that some of the same people who recognized the legal right of Muslims to build a mosque (community center... whatever) and said it was simply bad form and insensitive to do so are now defending Rev. Terry Jones and his Quran BBQ this Saturday, September 11th.

What does it say when we recognize the legal and human right of one group to do something while discouraging them not to do so out of sensitivity for others... but then turn right around and do the opposite to another group?

I thought we were better than that. I thought we were able to turn the other cheek. I thought we did unto others what we would have them do unto us.

Rev. Terry Jones (no, not the Monty Python comic) does have a legal right in the United States to burn books. And the left have certainly defended vigorously the right of people to desecrate sacred symbols so we're already well aware that he can do so. The question is, should he?

If you think Muslims should show a little sensitivity and not build near Ground Zero, defending Rev. Jones makes you a two-faced hypocrite. Nothing less.

The Left's guilt in the burning of the Quran

It has been impossible to read the news this week and not come across the asinine antics of Rev. Terry Jones from Florida and his plans to burn copies of the Quran on the anniversary of 9/11. Thankfully most people -- including our PM Stephen Harper -- have spoken out against it as both intolerant and just plain stupid when one considers what the obvious reaction of the Muslim world will be.

And of course the left will try and portray this as just another example of how dangerous and bigoted the right is in general.

But let's not hold any illusions here: the left is responsible for this cavalier attitude towards religious symbols in the West.

It wasn't very long ago that artist Andres Serrano introduced the world to his Piss Christ, a picture of a crucifix submerged in his urine, or Chris Ofili rolled out his The Holy Virgin Mary, a mixture of the Virgin Mary, blaxploitation and female genitalia pictures and dung. And some of the more well-known figures in the left-wing community -- such as actress Susan Sarandon -- actually staged protests in defense of this desecration.

Sorry. My mistake. The left calls it art.

But where were the vast numbers of editorials deploring these exhibits? I do remember it being reported. Vilified in the editorials? A handful maybe. Vast amounts of media personalities endlessly talking about how shameful and bigoted an act it was? Not even close.

The media had ample opportunity to show principle in calling out bigots. They had ample opportunity to stand up and say that desecrating sacred articles is not only uncalled for but simply repulsive and inflammatory. Instead, they chose silence. Even though there was an outcry from the Christian community, they remained silent.

And we all know... As you sow so shall you reap.

The actions of Rev Terry Jones are in no doubt deplorable. But make no mistake. This could have been avoided if the political left had done the right thing all along and stood up against bigotry in all forms. The left could have stood with the right in saying that they will not stand for sacred symbols to be treated with disrespect.

For them to point fingers now is a little rich.

Voting Present on World War III

Back when Barack Obama was still only the President Elect, he deemed it appropriate to call Iran's nuclear ambitions exactly as it is: unacceptable. And with nearly two years of talking about, conversing with and discussing in general we're still waiting to see exactly what it is about Iran getting the bomb that is unacceptable to Obama.

Perhaps everything up to Iran having a fully functional, tested and used bomb is acceptable.

But what about Russia?

In recent weeks Russia has decided that it will assist Iran's nuclear ambitions. This in clear understanding of Iran's two-faced "It's for peaceful purposes..." / "We have every right to build nuclear weapons..." stance. There can be no doubt that given the opportunity, Iran will develop nuclear weapons and will have no problem either using them directly or indirectly to target their enemies.

The most obvious side of this is that Israel -- now pretty much alone thanks to Obama -- will be forced to either launch a preemptive attack or in the face of developed nuclear weapons defend itself. In either scenario, Israel comes out looking bad. This gives Russia and all other anti-Israeli countries the perfect chance to come down hard on the Israelis.

But there's one thing on face value that doesn't make sense...

Iran is an Islamic republic which means that it will be first and foremost an ally to Muslim interests. Russia is presently engaged in a longstanding conflict with rebels within Chechnya, a largely Sunni Muslim population. It is no secret that the Muslim population within Chechnya despises Moscow. Even secularist Chechen rebels have been steadily converting to Islam.

Which begs the question... why would Russia arm the friend of it's enemies?

On face value, it makes no sense for Russia to help the Iranians become a nuclear superpower with the ability to launch nuclear attacks either directly or by proxy. One of the clearest targets of the Muslim population would be Russia itself who is responsible for what is perceived as Muslim genocide in Chechnya.

Now it doesn't make sense until you consider the possibility that Russia actually wants to be a target.

Now, I'm the first to admit that this has the obvious stench of conspiracy theories. But if you think about it, Russia is not happy with its status as a largely has-been superpower. The Russian government is not in a position to do en masse what it would do before, which is take whatever it wants by force.

But just as the United States had carte blanche to invade Afghanistan after 9/11, a Russia that has been the victim of a nuclear attack would have nothing stopping it from wiping out its Chechen foes. It would also have every justification to then invade Iran who would be seen as the face of the nuclear weapon itself.

Taking over both Chechnya and Iran, would certainly light a fire under every Muslim dominated country including the 93% Muslim Azerbaijan and 89% Muslim Turkmenistan. And any action by these countries against Russia -- either directly or through rebel activities -- would give Russia justification to invade both.

And that is the only thing standing between Russia having 100% complete control over the oil-rich Caspian Sea.

With Barack Obama being quite obviously a moral relativist, he would likely argue that Russia's actions in face of nuclear devastation are largely justified when compared to the United States' response to 9/11. After all, who could honestly see Barack Obama taking the United States to a gunfight with Russia? He would much rather find an excuse not to get involved.

But this of course would turn into a series of conflicts throughout the Middle East drawing in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO member Turkey. And any attack against Turkey would obviously draw in the United States, Europe, Great Britain and Canada.

And boom... you've got World War III.

Obviously this seems hard to believe. But when you ask that one question of why Russia would supply the friends of its enemies with means to produce nuclear weapons, it all comes down to what opportunities it could present Russia. And having control over the near majority of the world's oil supply might just be too great a temptation for the financial strained Russia.

The only real preventative measure would be for Barack Obama to do something other than stand up on the world stage and vote present.

I'm not holding my breath.