Personal ramblings on whatever makes the news and shakes my fancy. Reviews on stuff I have bought or used or experienced, and observations on people I have had the fortune to meet and life's epiphanies that have impacted my development and has made me ME.
Just when you think the criminal class have run out of new crimes to commit you hear of a story in which they out do themselves. Although it might not really be to their credit.
A south Florida kidnapping and robbery incident turned the tables on the victim and left him with a lot of explaining to do – mainly leaving him to explain to his wife (his children and his mother) why he had a girlfriend.
Incidentally he might also have explain to his girlfriend why he had a wife and kids (I'm sure he rather explain the mother though, not that he would be asked about that).
What is it with the burqa that has the power to bring European government's to their knees shaking?
This form of Islamic garb that covers the face, ostensibly for modesty's sake, is looked upon with utter disdain and with so much contempt that some European governments are now passing laws that ban its use.
The French were the first, the Belgians followed. Face-covering is public is also banned in s city in Spain. Soon Italy expects to follow suit with an Italian parliamentary commission approving a draft law banning women from wearing veils that cover their face in public.
Do these parliaments not have enough legislation or other legitimate concerns on their plates?
It is the curse of the white man that he has so much to do before he eventually sleeps... whether it is civilising Africa, teaching human rights in Asia, or liberating women from the shackles of Islam... the white man believes that it is his responsibility to rid the world of such vice, as much as he believes that Jesus was actually white.
It is unfathomable this audacity that allows someone to believe that a person of middle eastern descent would have physical features of an European rather than an Arab or an African... but that is another story and not the purpose of this rant. I'm just saying.
Anyway, while it is true that some women are probably wearing the burqa on coercion – for fear of reprisal from over zealous bigots in the form of domineering fathers, uncles or brothers (and often times, mothers, aunts and sisters) – there are also others who find wearing the veil comfortable and feel safe.
Saying that all women wearing a veil that covers her face in public is not doing so with free will or is forced to do so is like saying that all men are actually gay but most marry women because coming 'out' would be frowned upon. So what is really happening is that men who 'out' themselves as gay are actually free and exercising their free will, just as women clad in revealing outfits are the only women who are truly 'free.'
The Clinton/Merkel quagmire. Who's who?
Clearly a perception error because what is missing is that connection that some women could choose to cover themselves up and not wish show cleavage or thigh. Should it be assumed that women like Hilary Clinton or Angela Merkel are actually being oppressed and are 'forced' to wear those pant suits when they would rather some summer frocks?
I am not sure what the Quran prescribes exactly, but I am almost certain that it does not prescribe covering of the face so that only the eyes are visible. I know that Islam dictates covering of the arms, legs and the hair – more akin to a pant suit ensemble but maybe also with a head scarf.
Apparently the Italian law to ban the burqa was propelled by a Moroccan-born female member of Silvio Berlusconi's conservative Freedom People party. She proposed the law because she wanted to help Islamic women integrate more into Italian society. She says that there are more and more women in Italy seen wearing the burqa so “we need to help women get out of this segregation... to get out of this submission.”
What amazes me more than that this woman is Moroccan and should be more attuned to the Islamic way of life and ideals, is that Silvio Berlusconi is considered a conservative!
But I digress.
Personally I do not like the burqa on anyone – but do feel that it is a personal choice and definitely not to be coerced. In my opinion the only time a man would really object to a burqa is when it is on an Angela Jolie as opposed to an Angela Lansbury – but the motive of that objection would be more baser than any lofty ideals.
Personally I feel that the parliamentarians are so gung-ho to pass the legislation because, well, because of the burqa they can't differentiate between the Jolies from the Lansburys and are left second guessing. Trust me there is no lofty ideal at work here, just simple perversion or depravity and the power to do something about it.
Passing the burqa laws may actually liberate some women, but will also completely castigate others from public life. One should consider that just because there may be fewer burqas seen on the streets of France, Belgium, Spain or, soon, Italy, it could also mean that the women so 'liberated' are not parading around anymore; but are ironically shackled down.
In my mind my senses are more attuned to irony during the month of Ramadan than it is during the rest of the year.
A devout muslim I am not, in the way a stereotypically devout muslim might define the word, but I am sensitised to the values of the religion and ultra-sensitised to see the ironies in reality that those values uncover.
While it may not necessarily be the 'official' version, my interpretation of the month of ramadan is 30 days for reminding oneself to remove all impure thoughts, be thankful for all that one enjoys, and see the simple pleasures of life as the miracle they are.
(Oh, and also a month to practise greater control over ones' movement, nourishment, thought and speech).
In my case particularly the senses are heightened during the month of Ramadan and I see the irony and duplicity around me all to quickly (it is also safe to say that, alas, humility is not one of my stronger suits in this time of abstinence and moderation).
But enough of me and my wise old ways.
In a news report that caught my eye recently, the mayor of Sheboygan, a small town in Wisconsin, USA, is a self-professed alcoholic and has admitted to drinking, getting in a fight and passing out in a tavern over the weekend.
The mayor passed out on a table, with a Coke handy.
While the mayor apologized for his loss of inebriation and his overindulgence in the 'holiday spirit,' he refused to step down from his job.
The Sheboygan City Council, however, is not so sure and have considered a resolution asking for the mayor's resignation. However, no one living in Sheboygan has filed a formal complaint against the mayor, which would be a necessary step for the Common Council to be able to remove him from office.
The common council members have said that if no resident launches such a complaint, they, as taxpayers, stand ready to act.
The mayor has said while that he understands the council's position and admits to being an alcoholic, he is quick to add that "I've been successful in spite of it, and I will continue to be successful."
Basically the mayor went out to dinner on a Friday night, had a few drinks but didn't stop for three days. In that time he passed out in a bar, and had a scuffle with some other patrons (although, he pointed out, he didn't start it).
Alcohol has apparently never affected his job he claims (but admits that his personal life isn't doing so well).
The mayor has said that he is working on treatment to tackling his demons, including group counselling, and meetings with doctors and psychologists. And that he would continue to do so in the evenings and weekends while he continued to run the city as its mayor.
Something tells me he has not considered moderation or abstinence.
Nonetheless residents have begun to say that it's about time for the mayor to battle his demons in private. Scott Kautzer of Sheboygan sums it up "If [the story is] as it appears on its face, a change needs to be made, because Sheboygan is bigger and better than this story is making us look."
In another part of the world the Lithuanian mayor of capital Vilnius took an extreme approach to express his displeasure with motorists who park their cars with impunity around the Lithuanian capital.
According to a newspaper report, the frustrated mayor, “seeking to reassure residents that the city will not let drivers park illegally without punishment, hopped in an armoured personnel carrier and drove over a Mercedes-Benz.”
A video of the publicity stunt — posted on the mayor's YouTube page — shows the grinning lawmaker and a handful of men riding the tank as it slowly rolls over, then partially crushes, an old Mercedes-Benz S-Class parked in a bus lane.
Narrating the video the mayor explained that "In the past few days, expensive cars have been illegally parked in almost this exact place – a Rolls Royce and a Ferrari."
"I want to point out that if you have a car and more money it doesn’t mean that you can park it everywhere. Recently, there’s been an increase in this type of parking violations, and it shows a lack of respect for others," the mayor continued.
He is hoping that people will get the message loud and clear, but has added theh he had no reservations to do it all again.
The mayor's spokeswoman pointed out to reporters that the Mercedes-Benz was purchased specifically for the video. No word as to how he got the armoured personnel carrier, but I expect that such 'out of job' vehicles are quite the ordinary in the former Russian state.
The mayor could have used a little bit of moderation, but I believe the message has been made very clear... only cheap cars are allowed parking on the bus lanes.
Those who have been paying attention to the news of late MUST know of the newly installed Pakistani foreign minister who is currently in India for a meeting with her Indian counterpart.
And she is not a topic of hot discussion, because she is a woman or that she is 34 years of age but more because she is quite the looker. An asset that has apparently won her instant fans in India. Otherwise sober newspapers have provided tabloid-like headlines with their story of the foreign minister's visit and some have even resorted to commenting on her dress sense.
“Pak puts on its best face,” screams out India's best selling english language newspaper The Times of India; the Mumbai Mirror tabloid chose to play good humour and headlined its story “Pak bomb lands in India”; The mass circulating Hindi paper Navbharat Times came out and said that India was “sweating over the model-like minister.”
The popular media, amidst general sentiments that the meeting of the two foreign ministers was “historic” and echoing the rhetoric and the usual promises made by either side that “the peace process must go on,” comments from both sides stressing that “dialogue was important,” and public statements on “renewed co-operation against terrorism,” were also able to interject that the Pak foreign minister “was spotted at the Delhi airport in a monotone outfit of blue – the colour of the season.”!
So much so that, in my mind, 'strictly' news reports on the visit looked like too deliberate an attempt to be professional when the writer would rather make a at least one more reference to the Pak foreign minister's looks, dress or dupatta style.
Some papers have already pointed out her choice of Roberto Cavalli sunglasses, Hermes handbag and her other “tasteful” fashion accessories!
Question is are people really taking her seriously and whether the youthful Pak minister can rise above the patronisation and prove her political acumen and insight is as sound as her fashion sense?
And speaking of gender pains...
Sanctity of Marriage: Gender pains?
Traditionally marriage has been an institution between a man and woman... as the times change, however, same sex partner marriages are becoming more open, especially in countries that now allow the practice.
Of course there are countries that do not do so, even though they have not outlawed homosexuality.
It appears that a groom in a recent wedding in Jakarta, Indonesia was actually a woman. The bride's same sex lover had posed as a man for her hand in marriage.
Incidentally the ruse was discovered at the marriage ceremony itself. Suspicions of the actual identity (but not the sex) of the groom began to first arise when 'Rio' arrived at the ceremony without any relatives and failed to show any documents – but the game was finally up when the groom's heavy voice suddenly changed into a feminine one.
Embarrassment (and face) in front of family and guests, gathered to read the Koran at the Islamic marriage ceremony, was averted by having the bride's former boyfriend, Kimon, sit-in for the 'not-so-groom' and marry her.
Questions is (actually, questions ARE) what sort of fool ex-boyfriend goes to a former girl-friend's wedding, to say nothing about what kind of marriage he can honestly expect if the bride is not into boys? (After all he did consent to the marriage.)
And speaking of consent...
Sanctity of Consensual Sex: What entitlements?
As consenting adults a man and a woman (not inebriated or out of their senses by anything other love or lust) may consummate their 'relationship' in any motel room – there is nothing to question or judge it really.
(Assuming, of course, that both consenting individuals are of age and single... any variation on these two criteria make things more complicated and open for harsher judgement.)
A twist on this is that an Australian civil servant is actually suing her employer for compensation for injuries sustained during a sex romp while on a business trip.
Now from what I understand they were two consenting adults who chose to engage in some hanky-panky in their motel room in the later evenings. Possibly some rough hanky-panky as one of the parties was injured in the act.
It should be noted that the injuries sustained were not from chains or whips, as might be initially imagined, but from a glass light fitting that came away from the wall!
Her solicitor has argued in court that “a woman injured while having sex in a motel room paid for by her employer deserves the same treatment as someone who had slipped in the shower or been bashed.”
She has claimed an entitlement to compensation because her injuries were caused "during the course of her employment", as she had been sent to a country town to stay the night ahead of a meeting early the next day.
Her counsel submitted that “lawful sexual activity was considered reasonable behaviour for a motel room.”
Needless to say she did not win, because the state reasoned that “having sex was not a "necessary activity" for a motel room, in the same way that "showering, bathing or sleeping" is.”
I guess there are some sacred truths that remain intact after all.
The question may be. Why? The answer is pretty simple. Why Not?
The image below is a photoshopped image, I just wanted to use it as it is a taxi image from Bangladesh and am assuming someone from my homeland worked on it. It's interesting. Click on the image below to go to the webpage and view other similar photoshop manipulations. All the images are from Bangladesh, and the idea and humour Bangladeshi!
