Audax- Suggestions for your homework.

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Pirates have been around forever. Their tales of looting the seas, pillaging villages and sailing across the globe survived long after the golden age of piracy. Cilician, Viking, Arab, Slavic or Chinese pirates all took to the sea, some as late as the last century.
Others ended their pirate “careers” as far back as medieval times.
Surprisingly, a few are still practicing this antiquated means of subsistence. Among them, the Somalis.
While other nations develop new technologies used in medicine to cure incurable diseases, or explore the universe and oceans for new forms of life, today’s pirates are incapable to relate to modern times, remaining in the rear of our epoch.
I just read that three Somali pirates have died during a gun fight among themselves on the Ukrainian-operated cargo ship they hijacked off Somalia's coast.
The episode is tragically funny. Besides, it presents an accurate depiction of the geographical area populated mainly by rival clans. What are the chances for these clans to put their egos aside, work for the benefit of their country and stop relying on foreign help?
There are voices trying to victimize the pirates, suggesting an explanation of the piracy consequential to extreme poverty and lack of opportunities.
What the rest of the world should know is that Somalia is not exclusively famine and fly-ridden children.
Some claim that Somali piracy is triggered by hunger as they seem to target ships delivering UN food aid, however crew members have been kidnapped for ransom. The French luxury yacht seized on 4 April, 2008 or the Hong Kong chemical tanker seized on 15 September, 2008 are only two examples that defy the hunger theory.
Pirates are almost exclusively based in Puntland, a rich coastal region of Somalia abundant in fish and other resources, exporting large quantities of seafood, dried fish, tuna, frankincense, gum Arabic and sea salt.
Recently, the pirates have hijacked ships carrying Russian tanks to Nigeria (“nice” job, Russia!) and 30,000 tonnes of petrochemicals (a Malaysian tanker).
All nations affected must act immediately. Ignoring the escalation of violence at sea gives Somalis a green light on piracy. A country without a national legal system, Somalia lacks the juridical apparatus to crush sea piracy. Some clans might even be against criminalization, just as they opposed the abolition of slavery in the past.
Reading about piracy today, when advanced societies travel in space and discover new planets, is like reading a book about cave men.
They should be sentenced to community service for at least 10 years.

Photos:Wikipedia

17 October 2007


Streets talk louder than politicians. Streets speak the truth, without make-up. Streets reflect what we are.

Women’s emancipation, free elections, sexual revolution, fatherless children, teenage parents, breast implants, fat feminism, large cleavage, exotic children adoption, universal vote, tattoos, piercings, same sex marriage, unisex toilets, social marijuana smoking, artificial insemination, multiculturalism and legalized swinging and the list could continue; these are only a few realities defining our proclaimed egalitarian society, where often individual rights on religious grounds weight more than secular established laws. This reality creates what we proudly call the best of all societies, the pearl of all democracies. We give definitions of freedoms and liberties within a blink of an eye and we proclaim them the sole measures of judgment for the whole world. When it comes to others, our criticism is fierce: we proclaim with arrogance that Afghani and Iranian women are not free because they wear a burka or a chador. Thus, we have invaded or intend to invade their countries to liberate them. But wearing the same traditional piece of clothing, by the same women immigrating to our world, is automatically considered “freedom” by our western broad-mind. If we allow these women to live with covered faces here, why do we make such a colossal freedom statement of this reality translated to their countries of origin? Why does it bother us there and doesn’t bother us here?
Streets tell us not only stories, but they also present us a quite accurate image of a society, mirroring its system of values, human interactions, grade of personal liberty and public freedom. When you see a teen age pregnant girl, smoking marijuana in a park, you have already received information about the society that girl lives in. When you see someone’s bra strap, underwear and buttock, well, that’s once more a very true mirror of our society and of our system of values.
Buttock cleavage is exposure of the buttocks and the cleft between them, often because of low-slung trousers. It is so frequent and popular that almost nobody notices it anymore. Nevertheless, nobody seems to be bothered. Still, when half of a buttock is exposed, it is hard to be ignored.

Ban them
I am not the only one or among the few ones to observe and criticize the liberty some women take (men also) in showing their lingerie, under the slogan “I am free to wear what I want”. I am not that sure. The underwear is indeed an important piece of clothing, dating back to the times of the loincloth, probably the first of what we call today lingerie. But do we have to make a visual statement of it?
In the 90s, hip hop world would popularize a style known as the Sag, which allowed blue jeans or shorts to droop low, exposing the stomach and the underwear, in a desperate ultimate sexual statement. At a closer look, bagging and sagging are another way to hide insecurity over their own bodies. Skinny legs are not a matter of pride for many young boys, so, these trousers are considered to project the image of muscular tough guys upon them. In reality, what they want to hide is only enhanced. Rebels? Tough guys? I am not quite sure, since they have to waddle like penguins so that they don’t fall off completely. When women wearing thong underwear expose themselves in this way, it is called a “whale tail”. The term was coined by Gavin Hamilton in 2003 when he launched a site using the description. If aesthetically this fashion is obscene and a visual catastrophe, it has also moral implications since flirting with indecent exposure is not exactly a probe of maturity and courage. Baggy pants that show boxer shorts or thongs are becoming a major concern throughout the United States. In many school districts across the United States, sagging is prohibited. Canada doesn’t subscribe to anything like this for now, since Canada is doing everything in her power to differentiate from the USA at the point of even accepting immigration rejects from our southern neighbor. In Atlanta public hearings are planned in order to take a decision that might be considered, how else than racial, since sagging originated from black youth. Many pitiful organizations defending our freedoms consider that such a law infringes upon these young people’s individual freedoms. Only that these organizations are not as vocal when it comes to defend our freedoms, of those who are not thrilled to see people using their underwear as a declaration of independency. If someone would like to parade Adam’s leaf and proclaim his freedom, well, what modern society would accept that?
What about nudity? If someone chooses to go to a concert, shopping or go to work nude what should our open-minded society do, so that individual freedom is not overlooked? What these organizations do not seem to realize is that freedom without rules and limits becomes chaos. Thus, the value of our freedoms is given by the universality of those who benefit from our rules and regulations. The Virginia General Assembly tried but failed to approve a law making the sagging style illegal in February 2005. In June 2007, the Town council of Delcambre, Louisiana passed an indecent exposure ordinance, prohibiting people wearing trousers which show their underwear. A fine of up to $500 or six months in jail for exposing underwear in public makes sure that the ordinance is enforced. Legislator Derrick Shepherd of the state of Louisiana in the USA made an attempt in 2004 to outlaw the fashion of low-rise jeans, particularly to bring a halt to the display of underwear under the pants, claiming it to be disrespectful and obscene. People spotted with their whale tail or boxers showing would be fined. The bill, HB 1703, was rejected by the Louisiana House. A similar bill was attempted in Hampton Roads, Virginia, USA, charging a fine for anyone deliberately showing their underwear. The bill was rejected in February 2005, in the name of human rights. School dress codes sometimes also banned pants of too low a rise, or visible underwear. Is it an infringement upon these pupils’ freedom? Yes, would bark some. If the cleft and the underwear are not enough to proclaim our freedoms, we have another one: the nauseating image of the muffin-top. The slang term depicts a person, usually female, whose flabby midsection spills over the waistline of his or her pants in a manner that resembles the top of a muffin spilling over its casing. Muffin-top originated as Australian slang in mid-2003, but has since become popular in other English-speaking countries. It may have been first popularized by the Australian television show Kath & Kim.
As about sitting down with legs spread wide, so that anyone can see their underwear, is quite symptomatic to many Asian women. Underwear exhibitionism found its way even to China, where the traditional mandarin gracefulness is way left behind in history. In west, women became brashly unrestrained, showing as much as possible. Mothers expose their buttocks, proud that their children can label them “cool” because they are sagging. Sagging parents? Hm, probably they are having sex in front of their own children.
In a society where everything must be sexy to have a value, exposing your body or your underclothing is consequently seen as normal. Some women are wondering what is wrong in showing a bra strap. Others simply do not understand why exposing your undergarments is considered indecent. TV shows are imposing the idea that looking like a mother is simply repulsive and a shame, suggesting all kind of revealing outfits, everything in the name of be /look sexy. Women in their late 50s-60s, desperately trying to conceal their age, humiliate themselves wearing girlish clothes. Where is the limit? Feminists have fought not to be considered toys and sex-machines; today, women are proud to show even what is less flattering, splashing a tattoo on an ankle or shoulder or piercing the last vestige of their virginity.

Ladies and gentlemen, must we demonstrate our freedoms with the cleft between our buttocks?

February 27, 2008

Muslim students, mainly from Saudi Arabia, want lectures to be rescheduled to fit in with prayer timetables and separate male and female eating and recreational areas established on Australian campuses. What is wrong in this picture? Obviously, it’s the country.The “students” who made their choice to study there should keep their prayers quiet and private and if living in a non-Islamic country is that demanding, there is always a solution: learn in one of their universities. They could choose one in Saudi Arabia where men and women study in separate buildings and have prayer breaks to cool off from intense studying.

When you start appeasing 7th century Muslims, it will never end.
Or it will end with us living under Sharia law.
How long will it take for the fundamentalist or less fundamentalist, moderate or semi-moderate Muslims to require their host-countries to change flags, national anthems, history books, national holidays, dress code and ask for women and men to work and study in separate buildings? Why not create a sector for females and one for males in every city where there is a mosque? Would such a decision make these backward fundamentalists finally declare their contentment? I never understood why isn’t Saudi Arabia building more schools in Islamic countries, instead of sending money overseas and open Wahhabist schools?
Why do Muslims choose to humiliate themselves, recognizing the superiority of the “infidels” educational system and schools? If they have decided to come here, than face the music!
Under the concept of Al-Takeyya if under the threat of force, it is justifiable for Muslims to lie and act contrary to their faith. The following actions are tolerable: Drink wine, abandon prayers, and skip fasting during Ramadan. Renounce belief in Allah. Kneel in homage to a deity other than Allah. Utter insincere oaths.
When dealing with Muslims, what they say is not the issue. The real issue is what they actually mean in their hearts. Lying is also acceptable amongst spouses, to keep “peace” in the family.
Governments and all kind of “integration” organisms and associations chant a slogan: cultural exchange, better understanding of other cultures etc. It seems clear to me that this is a one way policy: we must learn about them, we must introduce new curricula in our schools to meet their needs, we must be “open” and make compromises and we must “create the proper environment for a dialogue”. This intention is very polite and noble.
But what do they do? All they desire is to live according to their religious necessities and ideas. They are not willing to learn from us or “experience other cultures”. They despise our culture, considering it rotten and vicious. They are not here to eat and taste our food, listen to our music, watch our movies, visit our museums or read our literature.
While they keep ignoring that it is them who have applied for a visa, refugee status or political asylum, leaving “their countries”, we keep forgetting that this is our world we have created and we have managed to craft it so eye-catching that the whole planet would like to relocate here.
We are suggested to educate ourselves and our children to “embrace, appreciate and accept” their culture, while they teach their children to reject what is labeled “infidel” and remain “Muslims”.
Where on Earth is the cultural exchange when it comes to Muslims and non-Muslims?
I have recently seen a sad scene, in a public eating space. It was this numerous Muslim family (4 generations) sitting and chatting. All men were crowded around one table, while the single woman in the group was sitting lonely with the toddler at a table across the aisle. There is some backbone left here and there like La Trobe University International College , the institution that has rejected such abusive accommodations. Director Martin Van Run said that those Saudi students were fully aware that the university is secular before coming to study there. Here we are. Someone has finally the courage to say it. Is it “hate speech”?

Muslims in Australia
In 2006, Australia rolled out a pilot program in 16 schools in Muslim areas of western Sydney on the compatibility of Islamic and Australian values and the wearing of religious attire, including headscarves. The federally 1 million funded three-year program was looking “to improve understanding of other faiths and cultures.”
What about those “other cultures” to improve their respect and knowledge of our cultures?
Australia is under their heel. In 2007, Islamic Friendship Association of Australia president Keysar Trad admitted hearing young Muslims asking their cleric for advice on going to fight jihad overseas. These young Muslims are predominantly university students. Willing to become perhaps “doctors” and save our lives?

In 2007, an “Australian”, Ahmed Ali, died fighting alongside Islamists in Somalia, his country of birth. Ali (who married what else than an Australian convert!) migrated to Australia with his parents in the late 1990s. He went to Somalia with his wife and children, to expose them to an integration lesson. With the jihadist funds and the Australian social welfare, his wife will be living off the fat of the land. Even if under the Crimes Act 1978 (Foreign Incursion and Recruitment) Australian citizens who engaged in hostile activity in a foreign country face up to 20 years in jail, there is nothing stipulated on family members who were aware of the respective activities.

Australia should add this: “and their dependants who knew about their activities get no social welfare”
Keysar Trad is the one who said on the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia website about Sharia: “Sharia refers to the system of guidance in Islam. There are penal provisions within Sharia, these are referred to as Hudood. The Hudood are a very small part of Sharia. The following is a reasonable summation: 95% of Sharia protects the life, safety and freedom of individuals and of society, especially women, 5% are provisions to deter those who would threaten the freedom of society.Keysar Trad”

Unsatisfied Muslims in west had fallen on their sword, making the west fed up to the back teeth. Under false colours, fundamentalist Muslims work and live among us, waiting for the right moment to harm us. The case of the so-called “doctors” in Glasgow and the school bus driver in the Toronto case are only two examples of their chameleonic behaviour. They greet you, they are your neighbours, they mow the lawn, water the plants, complain about the weather. They are “friendly” and “normal”. Until the day they decide to act against the “infidels”.

We are fiddling while Rome burns.