Rory McRandall

With the exposure of people like Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart and now the gay-bashing, self-loathing, lying drug abuser from Colorado Springs, isn't it clear that this talk of being for "family values" is just smoke being blown up your butts.

These are the most judgemental people around, even though the Bible advises that they "judge not, lest ye be judged". They are small minded, deluded, willing to give up civil rights and constitutional guarantees to force their religion on the nation, actually believing that this is what "freedom of religion" means. They want prayer in schools, but only their prayers, not Jewish, Hindu or (God forbid) Muslim prayers.

What kind of family values disowns children who disagree with your faith? What kind of family values are so concerned with fetuses and so lacking in concern or compassion for children once they are born into poverty and want?

It's time to expose this lie and stop listening to it anymore.

It was reported today that Sheik Taj Aldin al Hilali, one of the most senior Islamic clerics in Australia, made the following comment in regards to the use of the body and face covering hijab that women in some Muslim traditions are obliged to wear: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside... without cover, and the cats come to eat it... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat's? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

Predictably, this remark led to much outrage in Australia, where anti-Muslim feelings have already run high amongst the majority non-Muslim population. Various officials spoke out against the comment, including Pru Goward, sex discrimination commissioner for Australia, and Prime Minister John Howard.

The Sheik made later comments trying to downplay the impact of his first remark, stating: "The presentation related to religious teachings on modesty and not to go to extremes in enticements, this does not condone rape, I condemn rape. Women in our Australian society have the freedom and right to dress as they choose, the duty of man is to avert his glance or walk away."

These two remarks reveal a lot about the thinking behind the more restrictive Muslim traditions under which women are oppressed and over which Western observers are highly critical of Muslim societies.

First of all, let's look at the retraction. Hilali said, while attempting to assuage the outrage he'd elicited, that his intention was to disseminate teachings for women "not to go to extremes in enticements". Taken in context with his first remark, specifically that "if she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred", this is a pretty inflammatory attempt at apology. So leaving your room is an extreme in enticement? Leaving your home is? Wearing clothing more revealing than a barely portable tent is an extreme in enticement?

Most societies, at least outside the Muslim world, would view this as an extremely restrictive teaching for women. Sure, it can be argued that Western society has taken enticement to a ridiculous level with thong bikinis being worn in public and prepubescent girls being shown in provocative outfits and engaging in suggestive activities in music videos and advertisements all the time. Sure, we in the Western world are open to criticism for our attitude towards sex, for our over-sexualization of every aspect of life, for our amoral treatment of the subject in pop art including cinema and television. But to put all the responsibility for sexual restraint on women, through the mechanism of curtailing their most basic freedom to move through society unrestricted, and none of this responsibility on men, is not only misogynist but also disrespectful to men in that in implies we are animals unable to control our basic urges.

And this is the other revelation in Hilali's remarks.

He first drew an analogy between cats being attracted to uncovered meat and men being attracted to exposed female flesh. He later, in his 'apologetic' second remark, said "the duty of man is to avert his glance or walk away". So, men have the impulse control of cats and cannot be expected to even look at feminine charms without submitting to the base desire to enforce copulation with the indiscreet female?

It is especially repulsive that Muslim societies cling to this view of gender responsibilities and reactions regarding sexual stimuli. Why? Because many Muslim countries have very strict legal punishments for other, non-sexual crimes. Beheadings and other violent punishment are still on public display in many Muslim countries. Some cut off the right hand of anyone caught stealing. It is an effective, if brutal, punishment I am told. I've had Westerners who've travelled and lived in Muslim countries where such legal codes are in effect tell me you can leave your expensive camera or even a bundle of cash sitting out on the dashboard of your unlocked car and, nine times out of ten, no one will touch it. Having their hand removed and being consigned to eating in private (for Muslim tradition designated the right hand for eating and other sanitary activities and the left hand for toiletries and the like, to eat with the left hand in public is not permitted) for the rest of their lives, being permanently branded as a thief by the sight of your amputated limb is too great a punishment to risk lightly.

Clearly a society that uses such harsh punishments understands the possibility of deterrence of behaviour deemed uncivil. So why then is rape so hard to deter? Well, if you keep telling young men that the merest glimpse of female flesh is incitement, that it is not really your fault but that of the displayer of the 'meat' then you are not really trying to deter, are you? If you keep slaying women who have been raped for their infringement on your family honour, then you are not providing any deterrence for the male perpetrators of the crime, are you?

Islam is one of the world's great religions. Muhammad was, in my own view, a prophet of God the equal to Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Buddha or Baha'u'llah. The teachings of the faith were probably responsible for the great Islamic culture that was the world leader in scientific and artistic achievement in centuries past.

However, the narrow minded fundamentalist view espoused by clerics like Hilali, all too common in Muslim societies today, is a perversion of Islam. The gender view that reduces women to meat and men to beasts is a perversion of Islam, of God's teachings and of humanity.

Since 2001 America has increased its contribution to global warming and environmental degradation, shaken the world's economy, started wars, illegally invaded countries, violated international treaties to which it was signed, caused tens of thousands of violent deaths in various parts of the world. Yet still Americans are not united in their oppostion to the Administration which is threatening the safety of the entire planet, their own population included. What should the world do to reign in this destructive super-power?

Can Americans who still believe in habeas corpus, in freedom, in truth and justice stop the chicken-hawk who is trying to crush the world under his heel and make America into a despotic empire? Or will the whole world will have to rise against America to stop the military industrial complex from destroying humanity in the name of power and profit?

The United States has been, in its history, the greatest beacon for freedom, democracy and prosperity in the world. However, this past has also included a troubling propensity for interfering in the affairs of other nations and imposing dictatorships on others.

Now, the Bush doctrine moves America perilously close to being the fascist conquerors that Hitler aspired to being. They are bigger and more powerful than any other nation and it is difficult to imagine even the whole world defeating this militaristic force for evil.

This means that perhaps only Americans can defeat Amerika and prevent and new Reich from crushing freedom beneath its heal. Can they do it?

People should all have rights. Civil rights, human rights. But why should any habit confer additional rights on anyone? This would be true if your habit was inoffensive and benign, but even more so if you habit is disgusting, offensive and a health hazard.

If people developed the habit of eating raw excrement would we allow them to eat it in public? Would we let them eat it at their desk at work? Would we let them stand outside the entries to public buildings eating their crap and leaving the leftovers lying around on the ground?

Is smoking any different? It stinks, is gross and represents a health hazard, just as a dung-eating habit would do. So why do we let the fiction of "smoker's rights" even enter into the conversation.

You do not have extra rights (the right to pollute, annoy, endanger) because you have acquired a filthy and dangerous habit.

By the time January of 2009 rolls around (when the next president is inaugurated) George W. Bush will have left a very broken country in the wake of his ideologically reprehensible, morally bankrupt and managerially challenged administration.

The debt and deficit will have America teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.

The unwinnable foreign wars and unendable "war on terrorism" will have done nothing to make Americans safer but will have contributed a lot towards the reasons the rest of the world has for hating the US along with helping to balloon the deficit and once again impairing the confidence of the US servicemen.

The complete failure to address pollution and global warming will leave have left the nation and the world facing an uncertain future and growing dangers and costs associated with climate change.

The continuation of the fruitless "war on drugs" will have again failed to address the problems of criminal drug trafficking.

What can be done to recover?

I know I am going to be flayed alive for this, but really, why does it have to be their way all the time?

Men use the toilet with the seat up (half the time). Women use the toilet with the seat down. Why is one way supposed to be correct and the other not? Can't women simply operate it to get it in their preferred position?

I know women will say that when its up they sit down and get a wet bum, but really! We sit on it too, half the time, and I have never gotten a wet bum. Look before you sit is the solution.

And don't tell me you don't want to touch the icky seat. Heck, you're going to wash your hands afterwards anyway, right?

What should a championship team look like?

Should one focus on defense and build from the net out? Should the "lunchpail" approach to teamwork be the basis for your team.

Should you build around an offensive star, acquiring players that compliment his talents?

Should you go for speed and try to make a run and gun team that can win shootouts?

Is toughness and the ability to "beat 'em in the alley" a prerequisite?

I love Leaf fans, though I am not one myself. They are loyal beyond all reasonable expectations.

Each fall the Maple Leaf devotee is convinced that THIS is THE year, the parade can be cued to await its inevitable ride up Bay Street. No matter how poorly the Leafs did the year before, no matter how bad their roster looks, the true Leaf fan BELEAFS!

In reward for this loyalty the Leafs have won no trophies, team or individual, for 20 years, haven't won a cup for 40 years as of this coming spring (2007) and have had almost no first team all-stars in that time as well. In fact, even though the Leaf Fans have filled every seat in the Gardens and now the ACC since the depression, the Leafs have produced only two Hart Trophy winners in all that time.

You could put the grandfathers of all the current players in uniform out on the ice and the Toronto fans would cheer them and believe in them from the opening face off until the last buzzer.

Orr redefined the position of defenceman, opening up the game to later talents such as Denis Potvin and Paul Coffey. His skill and grace on the ice were phenomenal to watch and he could control the tempo of the game like no other player.

Gretzky, on the other hand, had an undefinable quality that made him almost impossible to defend against. He made everyone on his team a better player by both his skillful use of them in offensive situations and by his dedication and hard work that inspired the same in teammates.

Hockey is fast, has lots of physical contact and controlled agression, requires athletes to be highly skilled and fit and requries in depth teamwork.

The games are exciting to watch and even more exciting to play.

Obviously the sport is superior to baseball (slow and boring), basketball (too much scoring and not enough variation in the flow of the play), football (too much stop time, not enough action per minute of the game), soccer (not enough scoring, not enough contact).

But is it the ultimate sport?

Most of us, except for those who have the deep seated conviction that they can "help" bring about "the end times" so that they can enjoy "the rapture", do not want the world to be consumed by war. We do not want all the suffering and the deaths of innocents by the millions.

So how do we stop it. Clearly, right now we are on the path to more war. The Bush administration wants to provoke more conflict and think they can win a world war. The terrorists are willing to die for their cause and their personal perversion of their own faith.

How can people of rational minds, regardless of what faith they hold to if any, stop the fundamentalists from imposing their distorted version of "the will of God" upon us all?

Liberals and non-partisan citizens express outrage at the Bush administration lying, starting unnecessary wars, abrogating civil rights, breaking treaties and acting like a rogue state. Conservatives, especially Republicans, then accuse them of hating America.

It seems to me that defending the principles America was founded on from those who have gained high office in the country is a better expression of love for the country than blind obedience.

Those of us who are not Americans but still have maintained some respect for this once great nation (and we are getting fewer and fewer daily) wonder how much damage the Republicans can do to America's image, capabilities and society before it is irreperable.

We all know the GWB is an idiot front man for this cabal and their oil company cronies, so I don't count him. As for these three, clearly they intend to enforce the corporate exploitation of all the world's resources at gunpoint. Which of them is the most likely to cause the global conflict they are toying with?

Almost every car manufacturer airs television commericals that show people driving in an unsafe and illegal manner. From speeding to driving donuts around traffic islands, to sliding sideways in water to what have you.

Sure, they have the little tiny disclaimer about "professional driver, closed road" which you'd have to have a microscope to read (one company even makes fun of that by making it the point of the ad).

When you look at the carnage on our roads, and especially amongst young, impressionable drivers, this seems totally irresponsible.

Hey, anyone from Ford, Chrysler or GM reading this? When I see those ads I am LESS inclined to buy your cars. Get it?

Jesus Christ spent his life helping the poor, serving them even to the point of washing their feet. He disavowed violence, adjoining us to turn the other cheek. He was not opposed to taxation, advising that we render unto Caesar that which was Caesars. Yet the Republican Party, which enjoys the support of fundamentalist Christians almost to the exclusion of all other parties, wants to toss the poor aside in favour of tax breaks for the wealthy and wage war against the world.

Oxymoronic, isn't it?