Evil Women

Recently on the Passionate Eye, a CBC news show, I watched a BBC documentary about this fifty-something English woman, Jane Felix-Browne, who had married one of Osama bin Laden’s sons, Omar Ossama bin Laden, a man in his twenties. Osama has a lot of sons, some of whom are wanted for terrorism and in hiding with him, and some, such as Omar, who are not. All of bin Laden’s sons, including Omar, had undergone training with him at his CIA funded camps to learn to fight against the Russians.
Omar does not seem to want to live the life of a terrorist; in fact, he seems rather lost, unsure of just what sort of life he does want to lead. because of his father, he has been rejected by the members of his family who are not hunted criminals. He has been rejected by much of society for that same reason. And, he has been rejected by his father for not being a terrorist.
When Omar speaks of his father, he speaks with longing. He does not condemn Osama, because he loves him. One gets the felling if Omar only knew where to find his father, he would happily join him, just to be by the man’s side. Omar may have once decided that terrorism is not for him, but his moral compass appears ungrounded, and this lost boy could perhaps be persuaded into a life of terrorism to regain his father’s love.
Even more eerie is the woman who married him. I found her behavior puzzling. She licked her lips constantly, an action I found disturbing. Like a poker bluffer’s “tell”, her tongue darted in and out as thought defying the viewer to catch the lies it presaged. Jane is always heavily made up. In the airport at Heathrow, she wears a niqua. Yet in a Saudi nightclub, she goes bareheaded. She seems to choose her outfits based on their ability to taunt her audience. She proclaims her love for her husband, but yet her eyes do not speak it. Her body language, words and gestures are all highly protective of him, more like an overbearing mother than a new wife. As though she seeks to keep him to herself, to gain control over him and guide his actions.
Her sideways stare at the camera reminded me of that infamous photo of Karla Homolka. As I listened to Jane launch into a tirade about how Osama is not evil and the western world judges him wrongly, her mask fell, and I saw her for what she is. The same type of woman as Karla. A woman who feeds on dangerous men. In my opinion, Jane sought out Osama’s son, all the way from her lower middle class home in England, because she wants to be near his terrorist father. I think She wants to lead his son back to Osama so she can join in.
I hope someone’s keeping an eye on her.

Rhinoceros

For regular readers of my blog, if there are any, you will have noticed I have been silent for over a month now. That is because I have been having a crisis of spirit. I have received so many rejection letters for my writing, my prime passion in life, that I have considered giving up. I know one needs a thick skin in this business, but mine has been scraped away. Rejection has taken all the joy out of my writing, bleached it dull. Perhaps, after nearly eight years of effort, it is time to call it quits, say the dream was good, I gave it a good try, but clearly it was not meant to be, and move on.
So I took a sabbatical. Stopped writing, said so there, you win, to all those stupid publishers with their little encouraging hand-written notes, telling me I have a strong voice and they loved my story, but they just can’t print it. Bleah on you.
I found there is nothing else I want to do. I like to write. But if nobody but me reads it, why bother? Does writing then become a silly hobby?
My sabbatical continued.
Now I’m back, but on my own terms. I’m going to write for the sheer pleasure of writing, and not worry about commercial potential. I may or may not send my work to market, but that will not be the point. I may never be famous, but ditto. I am still writing. Bleah.

Should a Sikh Wear a Motorcycle Helmet?

This is a letter I wrote to the editor of the Toronto Star in response to an article about a Sikh protesting a traffic ticket for not wearing a motorcycle helmet. The Ontario Human Rights Commission was supporting his claim that a helmet constituted religious discrimination.

The Human Rights Commission has gone too far this time. If Canada is going to work as a country, we have to have some agreement as to what rights, freedoms, laws, and regulations we will all share and uphold. Motorcycle helmets, like seat belts, are an inconvenience for everyone of every religion or cultural background. In that sense they are not discriminatory. A Sikh may keep his hair covered while wearing a helmet--the turban is not the only form of acceptable headgear for this purpose. Furthermore, riding a motorcycle is not a right, it’s a privilege. A rider must pass a difficult test in order to obtain a license. Not everyone in this country owns or rides a motorcycle. Not having a motorcycle does not hamper someone from freely enjoying all that Canada has to offer or from participating fully in all aspects of life in Ontario. In that sense, attorney for the human rights commission Scott Hutchison’s statement that, "Telling Mr. Badesha to choose between his religion or participating in the normal life of Ontario is discrimination," is ludicrous. Motorcycle driving is not part of the normal life of Ontario. I don’t know anyone outside of the Hell’s Angles who would consider it so. Mr. Badesha is simply being asked to follow an important safety regulation. His assertion that everyone dies in accidents every day is also ridiculous. Does the fact that sometimes accidents occur justify flouting any and all safety rules? Shall we all just start choosing which rule to follow and which one not to? With freedom comes responsibility. If Mr. Badesha truly wants to participate in the normal life of Ontario, he should quit wasting the taxpayer’s money on trivia.

Pit Bull Ban

Pit bulls are bred to be fierce fighters. They are designed t face off to bears, and win. They have broad, powerful chests, short hair, tiny ears, and narrow eyes, so that it is difficult to find a handhold to restrain them. Their necks are their strong point, since strangling them is out of the question. Fierce jaws that can bite down with the strength of a crocodile are another of their fearsome features. Standard police-issue 38 caliber guns cannot kill them with a single shot, or often even with an emptied gun. Like a bear, it takes a 45 to kill a pit bull. To my mind, this makes a pit bull more like a bear as a pet than a dog, and pet bears are not legal in most neighbourhoods.
Yes, it’s the owner not the dog, but what kind of owner chooses a pit bull? In my experience, the owner is scarier than the dog. My neighbour, whose dogs attacked an elderly woman last year, causing her to lose half her face, is one scary man. I’m sure he trained that dog to be vicious. That’s my point. Any dog can be vicious. But the kind of person who trains a dog to be vicious, chooses a pit bull for a pet, because a vicious Yorkie isn’t deadly. Which is why this deadly animal should be banned as a household pet. Pit bulls belong in a zoo with the bears.

Wal-Mart

What is it about Wal-Mart that both upsets and attracts people so? In my city of Burlington Ontario, Wal-Mart spent ten years fighting a battle through various levels of government to be allowed to open a store on the fringes of town. People angrily protested, saying it would destroy local business, ruin the view, and cause wild dogs to roam the streets. :P Yet as soon as Wal-Mart opened, it prospered, and continues to prosper to such an extent that now they are gearing up for a battle to open another store, this one close to our downtown core. Dreadful heavens! The end of the world as we know it is near, to hear the protesters talk. We all know, however, that as soon as this store opens, it too will be filled with shoppers, and will rake in obscene profits. Surely not all those shoppers were never involved in the protests.
So my question for these protesters is: if you hate Wal-Mart so much, why do you shop there? If you really want to keep Wal-Mart from doing business in your town, put your money where your mouth is, as the saying goes, and stay away. It’s that simple.

Telemarketers

Everyday it seems I get a call from someone trying to sell me windows and doors. Either the market for windows and doors is very competitive, or it’s just one aggressive guy. I don’t listen long enough to register the company name.
I’m actually thinking of replacing a set of patio doors and a couple of windows this year or next. I mentioned to my family that I’m going to start recording the names of these companies that call, make sure I get the spelling right, and then inform them that I’m planning to buy new windows soon, but not from their company, because I don’t appreciate telemarketers. And I will make sure not to buy from any of those companies.
My kids thought that might be unfair. After all, they said, telemarketing is a legitimate form of advertising. Was I also going to make a list of everyone who tries to sell windows on TV?
I thought about this for a moment, and that’s when I realized why I find telemarketing so offensive, besides the fact they always call during dinner hour, or when I’ve just settled down with a good bock and a nice cup of tea. It’s not even because I can choose whether or not to turn on my radio, or TV, or to buy a magazine or not, or to look a bill board or not, yet I can’t stop my phone from ringing, although these are all strong arguments.
It’s because telemarketing is not a legitimate form of advertising, similar to a TV commercial. I receive free TV shows in exchange for putting up with advertising. Ditto free radio programming. And my magazine subscription prices are greatly reduced due to the sponsors. Even this website is available to me for free because advertisers support it. For all I know, the volume of flyers that passes though my mailbox lowers the cost of stamps for snail mail.
My point is, I benefit from all of the above forms of advertising by receiving free or cost-reduced services. Does my telephone bill go down because telemarketers call me? No. If I start receiving telephone service for free because it’s subsidized by telemarketing, then I’ll quit whining and listen to them. Maybe even buy their products.
How about it, door and window guys, ready to pony up?