DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
Tossing Pebbles in the Stream: 09/01/2012 - 10/01/2012
Tossing Pebbles in the Stream
This blog is my place to sit and toss pebbles into the stream. The stream of Life relentlessly passing before us. We can affect it little. For the most part I just watch it passing and follow the flow. Occasionally, I need to comment on its passing, tossing a pebble at it to enjoy the ripple affect upon Life's surface.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
A Little Disappointing
I peeked! Yes, I peeked. I looked at the notorious photos of the Duchess of Cambridge, the lovely Kate. I have been resisting as a show of solidatity with the Royal family but apparently a lot of people have peeked even in Britain where the media has agreed not to publish these inappropriate photos. (I am not using that as an excuse).
The photos are not offensive. The wonderful couple of Will and Kate have not been found out to be engaging in outrageous acts. It is nice to know that they are a young attractive normal couple. Now if they had been caught reading "Fifty Shades of Grey" to each other, that might be another matter. What is offensive is that some low life photographer would think he had a right to invade their privacy in this way for money. How déclassé!
Frankly, I was disappointed. The lovely Kate is quite ordinary stripped down to here skimpy swimming costume, sans bandeau top. If one were stolling the swimming suit optional beach on Toronto Island, as I accidentally did once.(It is not well publicized), or Wreck beach in Vancouver or even the Côte d'Asur in the South of France, only to see her in a sideway glance one would not do a double take thinking to yourself
"y' a du monde au balcon" (what a set of knockers). She is very modestly endowed very much within the French standard of breast size, able to fill a champagne coupe.
This wonderful goblet was designed to match the breast of Marie Antoinette or any number of other aristocratic French women. It seems only the French must have a standard. In North American large size these days seems to matters.
Believe me, Kate is no Salma Hyack, a beauty of another type which would find me doing a double take and wishing a longer peek.
These photo confirmed to me that nearly all women, even young beauties like Kate look better clothed. I will not be thinking of these patio photos when I seen her on the news or photographed in her public role as a Royal. I will be enjoying how well she is dressed and how she must be a dress makers dream so easy to drape with her slender body with no obvious flaws. For me, the more erotic photos of her are those when she is in a lovely dress to have the wind accidentally lift the back of it enough ot suggest a show of her upper thigh. For me, the patio photos showed that her best feature in her "booty". (Am I showing a preference?)
In the end, her lovely face and gracious manner attracts our heart and devotion.
I was shocked when I read the Benjamin Netayahu showed up on Meet The Press and very openly spoke against President Obama and his middle east policy toward Iran. It is so inappropriate for a head of state to speak directly to the people of another country deliberately bypassing the elected government This is particularly true in the midst of an election campaign. within a friendly country, not only friendly but a major contributor of money for the military in the country. Netanyahu made it very clear he would prefer Romney over Obama.. I am sure Obama knows this and in fact he has been too busy to meet with Netanyahu, no doubt to keep him out of the campaign.
Where was the public outcry from all sides in the United States condemning such a meddling in US politics??
We had an experience like this years ago in Canada, The head of State of a country that was an ally and with whom we had fought and died for to liberated it from Nazi Germany came to Canada to be deliberately provocative in the midst of Canada's national debate on the separation of Quebec. This rascal was Charles DeGaulle. He insisted of speaking public to a crowd of Quebecois in Montreal using a speech he had prepared and decided he would give, not to the government of Canada, or even to Canada as a whole, but to the Francophones in Quebec who supported the dissolution of our Nation. Below is his speech. It still is bitter to hear it. His French is a lot easier to understand that the French my Franco-Ontarien neighbours speak. If you do not speak French go to the end of the speech and hear the phrase the summed up his views that were so offensive to Canada.
It did not take the Canadian government long before the sent him packing. He was no longer welcome in Canada. In Prime Minister Person's words, "Canada did not need to be liberated." Canada does not need this tail to try to wag the dog. Frankly French Canadians should not have welcomed his comments either. France failed to protect them when Britain took over French Canada. France then for two hundred years culturally cut off French Canadians. They laughed at French Canadian speech and culture as continue to do so today. France is no friend to Quebec.
There should have been a comparable outrage in the US in the face to Natanyahu comments. The US does not need the foreign leader to tell the American people what is good foreign policy for them. The US had been bending over backward to bring change in Iranian policy in order to stave off a rash and dangerous unilateral act of war by the Israelis. Netanyahu's passion for a war with Iran is not ever very popular in Israel. He does not even have the support of his Defense Minister, Ehud Barak. Key members of the military, intelligence community and government as well an citizens are opposed to such a rash act. In fact, a little research will show that there is little or no evidence that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon. They are in fact developing peaceful nuclear power which is their right as they have signed the non proliferation treaty, that requires them to allow inspections of their nuclear facilities and programs. Israel is the only nuclear threat in the middle east with many nuclear bombs and no inspection as they illegally developed them.
At the time that Netanyahu was given a platform for his dangerous view on Meet the Press another Israeli, ex-Mossad Chief Meir Dagan was interviewed on 60 minutes. He is very much opposed to Netanyahu policy and as a former Intelligence chief he is the know as to the level of threat. Sadly, his comments did not get the publicity that Netanyahu got. Shame on the American media for giving him a platform and them not presenting a rational view to counter his extreme views.
If one cared to read the myriad of thoughtful articles on Iran and it's nuclear program one can come to the conclusion that there is no threat, there is not military program to develop weapons. We have no reason to not believe the Ayatolla Ali Khamenei when he says such weapon are un-Islamic for they target the innocent. I wish more Christian leaders in the West would declare nuclear weapons as being un-Christian.
This is the Iranian equivalent of the Iraqi 'weapons of mass destruction'. It is a phantom threat to create a war. The reasons ???? The Americans are fearful and ready to preemptively attack another nation. There is the chance to gain control of Iranian Oil. The Israeli may be diverting attention away from their treatment of the Palestinians and how they are stealing their land a trying to keep them forever a stateless and landless people, like the Roma of Europe.. Natanyahu is the tail that is wagging the dogs; the United States and other nation's government, such as the Conservative Government of Canada, (even more pro Israeli than the US if you can imagine. Shame on us traditionally Canada was more even handed)
A war with Iran is not in the best interest of the United States, or the the World. Netanyahu may think his government can gain something, with the US fighting and dying for his cause, while bankrupting it Nation, I doubt it. Israel is a dangerous State that needs to be told in no uncertain terms that attacking Iran is not a possibility. I trust Obama will do that after the election although Netanyahu has threatened to attack Iran before the election. Plans for protection of Israeli have been made in case of a counter attack, including the handing out of gas masks to everyone. Be afraid, be very afraid. Israel, the little pup of a nation may drag others into a war of aggression.
I have thought for a long time that the United States could be well served if it joined the rest of the liberal democracies and passed laws against "hate speech". It stands alone in that "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. At least this is the general assumptions. There are some some minor exceptions.
In the light of the recent deliberate release of a film that is a hateful and inaccurate attack on Islam is a good example of why there are needs to pass laws against hate speech. This film was a deliberate provocation and should be banned and the authors of it should be held liable of it's content and the predictable consequence of it's viewing in the Muslim Community around the World. This action by a small group of Americans has created a national security problem for the country as well as appearing to represent legitimate view of the American people as being at war with Islam. Sadly it has resulted in the death of American diplomats so far, aand created a lot of ill will toward the United States.
It is time the US debated the limitations on such speech that attacks one group on the basis of religion and puts the country in jeopardy.
In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by disability, ethnicity, gender,gender identity, nationality, religion, race, sexual orientation,  or other characteristic.
Canada has laws against hate speech. They are not used very often. Just the fact that they are on the books lets all of us know it is not a Canadian value to use hate speech. On the contrary, we celebrate our diversity and the rich contributions; religious, cultural, ethnic and sexual, groups brings to our common culture. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms defends this diverse groups as well as protects our freedom of speech. Our Supreme Court is able to balance competing rights and freedoms.
Here is a good place to begin a consideration of laws against hate speech.
In Europe, they have been trying to balance laws against hate speech and freedom of speech in line with the European Convention on Human Rights. Here is a source to explore the complexities in decisions by various European legal systems. It is not an easy task but it is not impossible.
Laws in the United States against hate speech would go a long way to lowing the vitriolic tone of extreme views and contribute to the civility of rational fact based discourse.