The Dandelions

.. the mutual admiration and bashing society.

Human rights (Part 1: zealots, China and Sarah Palin)

Posted by jingoisticbuthornydesperado on September 9, 2008

Human rights are the ultimate goal of an idealistic libertarian. Many are naïve, but many more are ignorant about the concepts of human rights.

Of course, freedom of speech and expression is part of the core value of our human rights, but the meaning of human rights is much more than just freedom of speech and expression. The true meaning of human rights is for the betterment of mankind rather than the need to satisfy the selfish desire to vent our angst without consequences or to further one’s political ambition. The very definition of human rights can also be twisted and be used as a weapon to deny other people from having equal rights and to justify the need of discrimination!

Let me start with the religious conservative or fundamentalist. There have been cases where the secular law requires religious order to stop its discrimination against ‘out of norm’ civil unions or adoption preferences. By the very definition of human rights, all of us are equal, which is what secularism is fighting for. But then we start having religious zealots who go all out to say that the secular law implemented deny the zealots themselves the human rights to practise the freedom of conscience. They want to have the freedom to ‘indignantly’ proselytise their beliefs, forcefully jam a feeding tube down our throats and feed us with their regurgitated faeces. They are willing to deny orphan children a home just because they think that the home these children are going into, is wrong in the eyes of their ‘God’. They want to have the freedom to practise what they ‘THINK’ is right and have us forced into their way of practice and thinking. Allowing others to do ‘wrong’ is to deny the zealots to practise what their conscience says is ‘RIGHT’ (as dictated by holy scriptures which were written by men). So to cut it short, they support discrimination! They rather have children orphaned and deny them a happy family. They rather have loving nurturing couple live a life of disappointment and inhibiting them from spreading the love. I call this an abomination!

And then we have China. Yes indeed, China does not have the best track record when it comes to human rights, but many people have also failed to understand the cultural and philosophical differences that separate the East from the West. The East still idolise the teaching of Confucius whereby the harmony of the family, the society or the country is more important than individual liberty. Some has accused me of doing a Hitler, when it was actually an idea that was founded 2500 years ago in China by Confucius that brought the Golden Age of Han and Tang dynasty. This actually benefitted the world until now through China’s ancient creative oeuvres. Hitler just twisted Confucius idea for his evil purposes to justify the need of the Holocaust. The most fundamental of all human rights is the rights to survive. A stable source of income, having to put food on the table for a hungry family for the majority can only be obtained in a stable society. Humans are notoriously selfish, and the corrupted democratic party under Chiang Kai Shek in China or corrupted Southern Vietnamese government where American aid went into the Southern Vietnamese elitists rather than the population, can be skewed in such a libertarian selfish way that it harms the general society. To say that China has fared badly in human rights is to ignore the fact that China has done tremendously well to maintain peace (human rights of having roof over the head, very fundamental) from its civil war and the disastrous cultural revolution. It will also be ignoring the fact that China has done tremendously well to feed its population (human rights to the access to food and water for survival) since its disastrous Great Leap Forward programme that leaves much of its population to starvation. All these are done in a mere 30-40 years in a country of more than a billion in population. I call these a milestone achievement in human rights. As its society matures, there is always of course room for further improvement and perfection……

Of late, you have the seemingly feminist Sarah Palin who is denying the very women in America their feminist rights. I did have a soft spot for her, I like to believe that she is a nice person who gets caught up in the Republican despicable and crass strategy. She is proud of her daughter making her decision to keep the baby and marry her boyfriend. Is there a need to be proud and happy of her daughter’s decision when she is an extremist pro-life person? There is no such choice when one is an extremist pro-life person, hence there shouldn’t be such thing as a decision. When there is no such thing as a decision, why is there a need to be proud and happy for a decision that shouldn’t exist in the first place? Paradoxical? I will blog more about human rights and Sarah Palin in part 2 of my article. For now, it is bed time……

72 Responses to “Human rights (Part 1: zealots, China and Sarah Palin)”

  1. barbie said

    What is this Sarah Palin, a relative unknown from Alaska doing in Mc Cain’s camp? She’s the exact opposite of what Mc Cain stands for in many issues. Let’s see. She’s an ardent supporter of gun, even supporting a plan to shoot wolves from the helicopter, linking the invasion of Iraq with God’s will (WTF!, opposes aborting foetuses even for rape victims, denying the threat of global warming. This is someone that probably will be the vice president of the most powerful country on earth?

    Well, Mc Cain is no better. I quote Bunn Nagara,

    “Due diligence should also not escape McCain himself, the age issue aside, since he is aiming for the presidency. Gen (Rtd) Wesley Clark, who had served in Nato and the Kosovo war, had wondered aloud how being shot down in a warplane qualifies someone for the presidency.

    McCain had played on his wartime experience of being a prisoner of war in Vietnam in building his “war hero” image. Indeed, McCain is better known for being in prison during the war than fighting the war, in a conflict his side eventually lost anyway.

    It might even be asked how that qualifies anyone to be a war hero. His supporters may say he was tortured while in prison, but others have said he had cooperated with the enemy.”

    Come on, this is the best the Republicans can come up with?

  2. […] Human rights (Part 1: zealots, China and Sarah Palin)Humans are notoriously selfish, and the corrupted democratic party under Chiang Kai Shek in China or corrupted Southern Vietnamese government where American aid went into the Southern Vietnamese elitists rather than the population, … […]

  3. worldattended said

    Bunn Nagara the High Priest of the M`sian LLL fraternity quotes Wesley Clark who was involved in the Nugan Hand Bank scandal where the 2 Directors were found shot dead. Nugan Hand Bank was generally a money laundering operation for the likes of Dictators like Marcos and Suharto – in addition to gun running operations.

    Wesley Clark being another director escaped with the lack of evidence. During his time the CIA also used the Nugan Hand Bank for opium money transactions in Burma and Indo China with Khun Sa especially flown into Australia. The protection for the Bank was Gen Wesley Clark.

    An attempted crackdown by the Aussie Govt was easily foiled. Tyree said “This is how you cripple everything that you don’t like. And if you want proof I offer you the fact that we toppled the government of Australia in 1980.” “[Prime Minister] Gough Whitlam and Nugan Hand [Bank],” I answered. Tyree affirmed. The Labor Government of Whitlam had been suddenly unseated after making nationalistic noise and questioning the role of US intelligence agencies in Australian affairs.

    Jonathan Kwitny the AWSJ journalist who exposed all this was found mysteriously murdered.

    I nearly puked reading that Star article.So much for the Bung`s darling.

  4. worldattended said

    “Come on, this is the best the Republicans can come up with?”

    100 times better than that nogoodnik Black muslim the Dems have got.

  5. raktamrittika said

    HUMAN RIGHTS..wooohooo, hard topic to cover here. All the best.
    Here what’s “human right” got to say..

    HUMAN RIGHT:

    Run to me and fall into my arms
    Come to me in all circumstances
    For I long to hold you in my arms
    To give you my peace and rest

    For I am calling you unto me
    To abide in me always
    Never to face the world without me
    Always to have you by my side

    For I will lead and guide you
    Each step you take I will go with you
    But for now let me hold you
    Feel my peace upon you and rest in me

    ciao!! wink!

  6. worldattended said

    I`ll wait for part 2 it`s going to be fun. I`m already rubbing my hands together.

  7. Nutsalive said

    To help you with Part2 here is something you really are going to love:

    What’s the difference between Palin and Muslim fundamentalists? Lipstick
    http://infidelsarecool.com/2008/09/09/juan-cole-whats-the-difference-between-palin-and-muslim-terroristslipstick/

    I know you are going to enjoy it. Have fun

  8. wits0 said

    I have no fondness for Obama and his Audacity of Fakir-y aka Fakery and the Donks behind him. It’s a matter of opening one’s eyes to the obvious cracks in what he purportedly stands for or not. If the LLL(Loony Leftist Liberals), after controlling the Academia, Hollywood and MSM, still cannot sweep the day against the Conservatives, suggests how actually wanting their half-baked ideology must actually be on the ground.

  9. wits0 said

    Sample some Obama fakery here: http://tinyurl.com/6qujoo
    LOL!

  10. crazy hoss said

    ROTFL he`s a funny christian huh:

    Obama: Man of the World
    The New York Times | March 06, 2007

    ”I was a little Jakarta street kid,” he said in a wide-ranging interview in his office (excerpts are on my blog, http://www.nytimes.com/ontheground). He once got in trouble for making faces during Koran study classes in his elementary school, but a president is less likely to stereotype Muslims as fanatics — and more likely to be aware of their nationalism — if he once studied the Koran with them.

    Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as ”one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

  11. jingoisticbuthornydesperado said

    Wits0,

    I will get back to you on Obama another day. But I am not a big fan of using blogs to source my information. I usually refer to the Independent, the Nation and the economist for information, and blogs by related journalists affiliated to reliable news media. Blogs are mere opinions which were not subjected to journalistic standards. I am not asking you to take my word for it in this blog or any other blogs. But to judge someone 100% based on an opinion formed by other people’s bias opinion who are not certitifed columnist or journalist is questionable. For all we know, the source you gave me might have been racist against black people who paints less sympathetic picture on Obama.

    As for Obama himself, I acknowledge he is not perfect and no one is. But he has many attributes that distinguish him to have my utmost support (With certain degree of criticism). I will get back to obama on another post.

    Loony Leftist Liberals do not control the media. Capitalism and greed is controlling the media. Rupert Murdoch’s media empire is more right than left, by the way and he supported Iraq war, all of his media outlets. And leftists are known to be more concerned about social welfare while rightists are more individualistic.

    Worldattended,
    Your racist comment is not justified…… If you want to discredit someone, give evidence, not mindless ramble. Yes I think Bunn Nagara hits a jackpot about Palin. I wouldn’t entertain any of your further racist comment if you don’t tone down.

  12. wits0 said

    Jingo : “Capitalism and greed is controlling the media. ”
    The only alleged rightist media in the US is Foxnews; the rest are variously leaning towards the Libs. It is also not as if the Libs are not serious capitalists because of one Robert Murdoch. If you go to Scott’s Blog, you’ll find many references to various sources. The Independent, the Nation or the Economist aren’t necessarily unbiased.

    AFAIK, Obama is just an empty suit and is dishonest.

  13. jingoisticbuthornydesperado said

    Wits0,
    I didn’t say the libs are capitalist. Capitalist is not confined to leftists or rightists. I was just trying to tell you that not all media are libs. The reason many media are against Republican candidate is because they see the similarity to george bush rule, that doesn’t mean that they are liberals. “If you are not for me then you are against me” is exactly what george bush said. The Independent is probably the least bias you can get. I read the Economist doesn’t mean I agree with everything they say. The economist can sometimes be more ideological than pragmatic. I have followed some of the articles closely with regards to China and Russia. You will notice my tone about China aforementioned is contrary to the one of the Economist. As for the Nation, I know that it leans excessively pro-democrat. That is why I turn to the Independent for better more well-rounded coverage of the republican.

    I have seen the blog by Scott. The contents are more emotional than rational. propoganda is about appealing to the emotional side, one doesn’t use word like ‘retard’ to intimidate people into submission. I am not impressed. I have seen better pro-republican or pro-bush article like Michael Totten or Sonic Charmer (his rebuttal to mine on russia) producing a more well thought of arguments or rebuttals.

    before being anti-liberal, reconsider. Many of the tradition or right wing views were initially of liberal origin like feminism or free speech. Free speech in the days of enlightenment was extremism in the eyes of the traditional orthodoxy monarchy. Now, feminism and free speech have become so ingrained in most societies that they are now generally regarded as traditional values to humanity. All these are of liberal origins manny decades or centuries ago…

    Obama is not perfect, he is still inexperience on certain issues like foreign policies hence some mistakes. Please read up on Jeremiah Wright incident before jumping into conclusion based on an opinion you read from a blog who may not be a professional journalist or columnist at all. I have my reasons why I do not rely on blogs for information 95% of the time apart from RPK.

  14. Madame said

    Interesting opinions, Jingo🙂 Let me deal with my fave topic of the moment….Sarah Palin!😉

    If Wits0 called Obama a ‘Fakir’ what would he call Sarah Palin, I wonder??!!😀 Sarah Palin is an ultra-religious, pro-life, gun toting woman who might appear to have a vindictive streak…(Troopergate😉 ) I agree with Barbie there….how can someone call herself ‘pro-life’ and then have no qualms whatsoever about hunting? Seems highly hypocritical to me!!! Another thing that really bothers me, is the picture of her carrying her little baby around (Down’s Syndrome…noisy raucous conventions are very stressful for little babies)…is she using her baby to gain more sympathy votes??? I think so! If she’s the type of mother who cant bear to be separated fm her baby….she wouldn’t be running for office of the VP now, would she?

    Her comments that the war is the fulfillment of God’s will seems truly bizzare to me! Killing ppl is God’s will????!!!! Oooops….I forgot….Muslims are not considered the ‘chosen ones’ and so are easily expendable…

    Sarah Palin is one big contradiction!!!

  15. casava said

    “I wouldn’t entertain any of your further racist comment if you don’t tone down.’

    Are you the blogmaster. How is the comment racist? Louis Farakhan et al call themselves Black Muslims and they are proud of it. Even Malcolm X and Mohd. Ali (ex boxer) were proud to define themselves as such.

  16. casava said

    “….how can someone call herself ‘pro-life’ and then have no qualms whatsoever about hunting?”

    You must be a vegetarian or PETA member so it`s understandable.

  17. casava said

    “Her comments that the war is the fulfillment of God’s will seems truly bizzare to me! Killing ppl is God’s will????!!!! Oooops….I forgot….Muslims are not considered the ‘chosen ones’ and so are easily expendable…”

    When traditional Christians vote for Palin, as I will, they are not being inconsistent. They are, in fact, being true to the best part of their heritage. This heritage helped liberate women without denying distinctions between the sexes.

    Christianity favors justice to all without denying proper roles for the masculine and the feminine.

    Historically women have led armies in Christian nations. (Read about Saint Joan in Mark Twain’s luminous Joan of Arc!) They have led nations magnificently as did England’s Elizabeth. Christians who attended churches with male clergy understood the difference between particular roles long before the modern era. They sometimes missed the point, as the horrid John Knox demonstrates, but the mainstream of Christian development soon saw that the role of head of state and government was not the same as representing the God-Man, Jesus Christ, at the altar.

    http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/john_mark_reynolds/2008/09/if_vice-president_palin_is_fit.html

  18. But I am not a big fan of using blogs to source my information. I usually refer to the Independent, the Nation and the economist for information, and blogs by related journalists affiliated to reliable news media. Blogs are mere opinions which were not subjected to journalistic standards. – jingoisticbuthornydesperado

    I am of the opposite opinion, in that blogs which try to be taken seriously hold themselves to higher standards of journalistic integrity for three reasons:

    1) Blogs are viewed as less trustworthy, thus they have to work harder at winning trust from the start.

    2) Information hosted on blogs can be easily cross-checked due to it being almost entirely online and the information (ideally) linked to references.

    3) Bloggers in the new media want to distance and distinguish themselves from the corrupt and manipulative mainstream media. Witness how the majority of established media is blatantly biased againt Palin while being slavishly ‘respectful’ of Obama, while our own local traditional media is a slave to the powers-that-be.

    That’s my three sen.

  19. casava said

    Oh, and and an after thought:

    Jingo is oft a term describing chauvinistic patriotism, usually with a hawkish political stance. In practice, it refers to sections of the general public who advocate bullying other countries or using whatever means necessary to safeguard a country’s national interests.

    The Terry Pratchett quotes from his book “Jingo” may be viewed here:
    http://www.lspace.org/books/pqf/jingo.html

  20. barbie said

    worldattended,

    Thanks for the enlightening comment on Clarke’s background, but that’s beside the point. It doesn’t matter who Bunn Nagara quoted, well if you are not happy he quoted Clarke then fine just forget that part. But, since Mc Cain so preoccupied with his ‘war hero’ image, perhaps you can share your thoughts on that. How a prisoner of war that spent much of his time in a losing war, could be considered a war hero?

    Casava,

    What that you said has anything to do with justification of war is the fulfillment of God’s will again??? I lost you there. Sorry.

  21. As for Obama v McCain… I have my own opinion as to whose policies will directly affect Malaysia more.

    Seven Reasons Why An Obama Presidency is Bad For Malaysia and the World

    With links to references, to be more ‘trustworthy’.

  22. barbie said

    I am waiting for Casava to tell me about ‘barbie’ after this. Guys, to the topic on hand please.

  23. casava said

    “I am waiting for Casava to tell me about ‘barbie’ after this.”

    You don`t know how to do a “google” search?

  24. casava said

    “How a prisoner of war that spent much of his time in a losing war, could be considered a war hero?”

    Like these ones?:
    http://www.thenational.ae/article/20080601/FOREIGN/420860922/0/SPORT

    http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/16/israel.swap/index.html

    You obviously do not understand what a “war hero” means. Both sides will have heroes in a war – notwithstanding the outcome.

    Sheesh! The level of education has really slumped. And I thought it was just a rumor.

  25. barbie said

    Casava,

    Yes, pray tell.

  26. casava said

    Pray for what? Tell what?

  27. barbie said

    Well, so that’s the smarties definition of a ‘war hero’, really. I am so enlightened. That’s what I thought, the definition of ‘war hero’ by certain people is so screwed, but yes I agree with you on the last part ‘Both sides will have heroes in a war – notwithstanding the outcome.”

    Point is, Mc Cain should sell something more relevant than his ‘heroic’ past. Deja vu, criticism against John Kerry by Republicans, suddenly make a lot of sense eh?

  28. barbie said

    Casava,

    I thought you know how to use google search, so you should know what ‘pray tell’ mean? I don’t know how to use google search, sorry.

  29. casava said

    “What that you said has anything to do with justification of war is the fulfillment of God’s will again??? I lost you there. Sorry.”

    Sigh this really is turning to be a nutty day. So for the moment last post:

    Read the OT and the Koran you will find helluva lot there. And this one is really lurvly:

    Second coming of Christ:

    After the completion of Fajr Salaat (congregational dawn prayers), Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) will open the door behind him where Dajjal accompanied by 70,000 Yahudis (Jews) will be. He will indicate with his hand to move away between him (Hadhrat Isa (A.S.)) and Dajjal. Dajjal will then see Hadhrat Isa (A.S.). At that time every Kafir on whom the breath of Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) will reach, will die. His breath will reach up to the distance of his eyesight. The Muslims will then come down from the mountains and break loose on the army of Dajjal. There will be war, Dajjal will retreat, and Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) will pursue Dajjal. Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) will have two flexible swords and one shield with him and with these he will kill Dajjal at the Gate of Hudd. He willl show the Muslims the blood of Dajjal which will get on his shield. Eventually the Yahudis will be selected and killed. The swine will be killed and the cross broken.
    http://www.islam.tc/prophecies/jesus.html

    Read the whole thing and enjoy.
    Bye

  30. casava said

    I don’t know how to use google search, sorry.- get someone to teach you. You are begining to be boring to me.

  31. barbie said

    Well, I tried to ask you to teach me no? You are interesting, really. Thanks for stopping by!

  32. wits0 said

    Well Dear Madame, my opinion of Obama as a fakir was formed much earlier before Sarah Palin came into the picture.

    Your chosen translation of, “pro life” would necessitates such a person to be a pure vegetarian, no?😀 Your rendition of motherhood also precludes working mom. And your imputation that, “Muslims are not considered the ‘chosen ones’ and so are easily expendable…” obfuscates the teachings of hatred against kafirs as a prevalent trait in the back water fundamentalist muslim states of the third world.

    “Sarah Palin is one big contradiction!!!”

    Nope, I don’t see it that way. She’s a classic all American liberated woman that is worthy of admiration. No need to refer to such terms as feminist, etc, because the feminist movements have sunk very low from the time it started okay in the early seventies and in fact deviated from its stated path, drowned in political correctness, for one.

    BTW, this is what Obama said about Sarah Palin :
    Obama “Lipstick on a Pig” Sexism

    The “Mess-sire” is desperate and the cracks are appearing in greater intensity on his facade!

  33. […] Human rights (Part 1: zealots, China and Sarah Palin)Humans are notoriously selfish, and the corrupted democratic party under Chiang Kai Shek in China or corrupted Southern Vietnamese government where American aid went into the Southern Vietnamese elitists rather than the population, … […]

  34. jingoisticbuthornydesperado said

    Wits0,

    That youtube clip is just a cut from his speech. If you have the whole speech post it. Taking a sentence out from a youtube video can easily be taken out of context. I don’t trust a 5 second video giving me information to judge someone.

    Please elaborate what do you mean by feminism has sunk so low?

    Casava,
    there is no need to be that pedantic over the word ‘jingo’ is there to discredit someone.🙂 I know what jingo… means, but it is used as an irony of improbable circumstances. I find it funny. You may not, okay.😀

    You have your ways of insinuating your condescence, so am I wrong to to intepret the phrase ‘no good black muslim’ as insinuation of racism and islamophobia? A muslim will not use the phrase no good black muslim as I am sure a christian such as youself will find distasteful if the word muslim is substitued for the word christian.

    Scott Thong,
    1) Not all media are affiliated to the MSM. The economist and the nation aren’t.
    2) Bloggers (apart from those affiliated to known media) may not be expert in the area they cover and they are not subjected to editorial checks. They can defame for all they care and they can remain anonymous, free from prosecution which makes it even more scary when they can slander as and when they want scot-free.
    3) Blogs are opinions, links given will be conveninetly plucked out from a list of references that reinforces the beliefs of the bloggers while ignoring the more bipartisan view.

  35. jingoisticbuthornydesperado said

    Scott Thong and Wits0,

    Please do not intepret my disagreement with you as hostile. I enjoy having both of you here around. I apologise if I have. There is just too many disrespectful disagreement.

    Scott, I will visit your blog later today. Thanks, mate. From the economist about Russia,

    http://www.economist.com/debate/index.cfm?source=hpevents&action=hall&debate_id=12&sa_campaign=debateseries/debate12/events/hp/panel/

    This is the kind of professionalism that is lacking in the blogosphere. Especially for a debate, i love it, because of the bipartisan nature of a debate

  36. Madame said

    Casava,

    You are rather presumptious, aren’t you?! I’m neither vegetarian nor a part of PETA. Go up and read my comment carefully….you seem to have lost the plot on this one😉

    The war is the justification of God’s will…..Would love to see you make some effort to answer this question directly. I dont really need a history lesson.

    Wits0,

    I watched footage of his speech on CNN and Larry King. Did Obama say specifically that his comment about ‘lipstick on a pig’ was targeted at Palin? Nope, I dont think so….btw, he also made an analogy about ‘old fish’😀 Some of the media, as usual has read more into this than there actually is, I suspect…

    You call Palin ‘liberated’. Is pro-life considered liberated? Even in cases like incest and rape, the pregnancy should be continued? Is being against stem-cell research liberated? I dont think so! Palin is not liberated but is still very deeply conservative🙂

    The world needs peace….we need Obama!🙂

  37. […] Human rights (Part 1: zealots, China and Sarah Palin)… only be obtained in a stable society. Humans are notoriously selfish, and the corrupted democratic party under Chiang Kai Shek in China or corrupted Southern Vietnamese government where American aid went into the Southern Vietnamese … […]

  38. […] Human rights (Part 1: zealots, China and Sarah Palin)… only be obtained in a stable society. Humans are notoriously selfish, and the corrupted democratic party under Chiang Kai Shek in China or corrupted Southern Vietnamese government where American aid went into the Southern Vietnamese … […]

  39. […] Human rights (Part 1: zealots, China and Sarah Palin)Humans are notoriously selfish, and the corrupted democratic party under Chiang Kai Shek in China or corrupted Southern Vietnamese government where American aid went into the Southern Vietnamese elitists rather than the population, … […]

  40. Anand said

    I hadn’t had time to read all the comments but you certainly know how to spark a debate jingo.

    Maybe I’m just stupid, but how is being pro-life bad? If abortion is murder, shouldn’t we all, liberated or not, atheist/theist/pastafarian hold hands are protest the termination of life?

  41. Anand said

    I hadn’t had time to read all the comments but you certainly know how to spark a debate jingo.

    Maybe I’m just stupid, but how is being pro-life bad? If abortion is murder, shouldn’t we all, liberated or not, atheist/theist/pastafarian hold hands and protest the termination of life?

  42. ErnieJean said

    Hhhmmm….but it does seem odd that one can profess to be pro-life and yet support hunting and war, doesn’t it?

  43. missjolie said

    Couldn’t agree more with Madame on those points, namely justifying war and killing in the name of God. That to me, is hypocrisy of the highest order… seeing how she professes her conservative stance on being a pro-life on the one hand but yet is willing to justify killing and murder of another form (many forms for that matter). Her rhetorics are a contradiction to one another. War is murder, worse than a crime of abortion if you like. Don’t get me wrong, I am against abortion but if the mother has her ‘valid’ reasons to do so (and I mean valid), then it’s her final decision at the end of the day.

    Casava, I didn’t know that you needed to be a PETA member or vegetarian to be against hunting? I’m not an affliliate of any political party, does that mean I cannot discuss politics?

    However I’m against hypocrisy of the highest level here. Palin is short of implying an American foetus is worth more than an Iraqi child? Come on. Give me a break! Don’t be blinded by your over zealousness.

    Anand, pro-life is not ‘bad’ so to speak but when the pro lifers decide take over the decision on behalf of the foetus against the will of the parents (even when there is a health risk to the mother), it is exceedingly egocentric on their part. There have been cases where even when the foetus posed a risk to the mother’s life, the pro lifers still fought the court’s decision on behalf of the foetus for the pregnancy to continue. So rabid and impassioned are the pro lifers that they purposely dragged the court case so that it would be too late for the parents to abort the foetus as it would have passed the ‘safe period’,all this while, putting the mother’s life at risk. Pro life’s stance on pro life seems subjected to only unborn foetuses. Other forms of life on earth, don’t really matter to them that much it seems.

    Sarah Palin is not only a paradox but another self interested politician who has a voracious appetite seeking federal handouts judging from her days as a ‘spendthrift’ politician in Alaska. … which has been the very thing that Mc Cain has vowed to stamp out when he becomes president. Frankly speaking, I don’t see a strong collaboration in the making.

  44. Anand said

    A quick (perhaps too short) answer:

    Hunting – human life is not the same as animal life. Something that all cultures/societies in history, as far as i know, have held

    Ware – See Aquinas’ just war tradition. If someone were threatening you, you’d be within your right to protect yourself. Abortion is the killing of an innocent human being. And very freqeuntly, the mother is not at risk -leave aside occasions when the mother’s life is endangered by the pregnancy.

    My fundamental point is…abortion is more about sexual freedom than about anything else.

  45. jingoisticbuthornydesperado said

    Hmm, lol, I am all for sexual freedom. One way to prevent abortion is through sex education in school and distribution of condoms. Like it or not, young people are going to be exposed to the internet and hollywood movies anyway. You can’t stop young people and their curiosity. Palin does not want sex education to be taught in schools, only abstinence. After sex education and if young people still want to have unprotected sex, aborting babies when they become pregnant, that is of course in my opinion morally wrong. The point is young people have to be educated about sex and the responsibilities that come with it, but Palin doesn’t. Giving them education would give them more choices, and would also enable them to make more responsible choices.

    Palin is aganist abortion at all costs even if it is life threatening…..

  46. Madame said

    Anand,

    Was America threatened by Iraq??? No way! Yet they invented excuses to invade Iraq….a totally unjustifed war!!! Yes, I agree we are to defend our nation when it is under threat. There is a HUGE difference btwn defending and aggression. America was definitely the aggressor in Iraq.

    I still think that the choice of bringing a baby into this world should rest completely with the parents…actually, primarily the mother. Yep…I’m pro-choice!😉 When you bring a baby into this world, it is an on-going life time commitment and so if you are unprepared either emotionally, physically or financially…you should pause to think again. We have soooo many orphans/abandoned children or children who are so emtionally scarred by totally inept parents. I have observed so many cases like this and I’ve reached the conclusion that not all people are cut out to be parents. Parenting does require much sacrifice and maturity and so, if by chance you do find yourself pregnant (despite all the birth control that is available) and you know that you are not prepared mentally for it….I think that abortion would be a wise choice.

    Miss Jolie…Well said!🙂 In what way is a foetus more valuable than a human life…..🙂

  47. Madame said

    Jingo….did you know that sex abstinence classes have not been found to have the completely opposite effect?😀 Its not working…

  48. missjolie said

    As far as hunting is concerned. It was the only way for man to bring food to the table and feed the family in the olden days. Today. It is purely a form of sport, now that surely you cannot condone?

    Yes I agree that an abortion is the killing of an innocent ‘potential’ human being. Many pro lifers would argue ‘scientifically’ that it WAS a human being, of separate existence, but imho, in the very early stages, it does not possess the feelings or memory to that of a formed human being. That is another argument for another chapter.

    And yes Madame, I agree. Having babies is the EASY part. Raising them is the HARD PART. People never stop to wonder about the social ills and the effects of babies born our of unwanted pregnancies.

  49. jingoisticbuthornydesperado said

    Lol, we were talking about human rights, but this discussion has made a U-turn

  50. wits0 said

    Actually, Jingo, if you really wanted to discuss human rights, you could have started with the question of human rights by focussing on the 57 famous islamic countries, as to whether they have any real human rights universally recognized as such. No not on China and the US, where all sorts of diversions must occur.

    Madame, war comes from hatred and the active teaching of hatred. Please take a look at the madrasas type of curriculum and the Saudi school ones.

  51. Our philosophy has always been to compete with our competitors in their backyards. We feel that if we can compete effectively with Siemens in Germany, then surely we can compete with them in the United States or the rest of the world. But we have to wage battle on their home turf.WilliamW.GeorgeWilliam W. George, President and CEO of Medtronic, Inc.

  52. barbie said

    Anand,

    “Abortion is the killing of an innocent human being.”

    Sarah Palin is a hypocrite. She’s anti abortion at all cost. ALL COST!! But she’s okay with her ‘God’s justified war’ which also involved killing innocent human being. Wait, what they called it again? Collateral damage? Oh…

    I’ll hit below the belt by using Palin’s argument as well. Those abortions are necessary, because it’s God’s will. God knows what’s best for us, low humans. NYAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    I am all for sexual freedom too! LOL! *winks Jingo.

    WitsO,

    “War comes from hatred and the active teaching of hatred.”

    Palin and Mc Cain’s policies on war does not help alleviate that, well they just barfed whatever Bush administration is doing. I would think terrorism comes from hatred and the active teaching of hatred, but most wars especially those waged by US so far mostly involved economic interest.

  53. wits0 said

    Barbie, any major powers will protect it own economic interests. E.g., Russia, and China, say, even India. No country can appease enough of the jihadists and its fatalistic hatred. Afghanistan’s Talibans being one good example.

  54. jingoisticbuthornydesperado said

    Wits0,

    There are some of us here who are religious and some of us here who are atheists or agnostics. Even amongst the atheists or agnostic dandelions, we have certain degree of disagreement over the significance, dislike or the controversies of organised religion in our everyday lives. But one thing we would never do is to specifically become Islamophobic. I disagree with some of the practices of organised religion or whatsoever, but I will never put Islam under a spotlight with microscope so nochalantly to reinforce Islamophobic stereotypes. Whatever malaise there might be in Islam or Muslims are also shared upon by other major organised religions. critcism of a specific religion has to be tread carefully. toying the line between knowledge-based criticism and religion-phobia is extremely difficult. One wrong step and instead of uniting the world through understanding, might end up fracturing the soceity even more.

  55. Madame said

    Wits0,

    I find that your definition of war seems rather one-dimensional. War is not always the result of hatred…more often its bcoz of economics and power. The best example that we have out there today…is the US-led invasion of Iraq. A wholly unjustifed, unsanctioned and inexplicable war! Btw, there were no Madrasahs involved here…but, wait a minute ;)….you could be onto smthg here….could the reason for the war in Iraq be George W’s personal vendetta/hatred against Sadam Hussain? After all, the Iraq-Kuwait war was one of the primary reasons that George Bush Sr did not win his re-election bid.

    US foreign policy has been supremely flawed over the last 8 yrs. Public perceptions of the US are at an all time low. Do you seriously think that McCain and Sarah Palin would improve the US image? Or would Obama do a better job? According to world-wide polls….if it was left to the rest of the world, Obama would already be President🙂

  56. Madame said

    Jingo darling, getting back to Human Rights….🙂

    What makes the US the moral watch-dog over the rest of the world? They condemn China when they Guantanamo Bay in their own back yard…Their military tribunal for these ‘detainees’ is nothing more than a Kangaroo Court! Its almost akin to ISA but with a farcical trial…

    Hypocrisy at its best, me thinks!

  57. jingoisticbuthornydesperado said

    Is it? I thought George Bush senior lost because he messed up the economy.

  58. Madame said

    Wars do tend to mess up the economy, Jingo🙂

  59. Madame, please see below for what Gitmo is really like.

    The Horrors of Holiday Camp Gitmo – What Guantanamo Bay is Really Like

  60. Madame said

    Scott, I presume that you actually hv been to Gitmo yourself since you seem to know it so intimately????😉

  61. chandran said

    Non-Muslims: Worse than Animals

    In Qur’an 25:44, Allah says that unbelievers are worse than cattle and
    animals.

    Ibn Kathir provides the reason why non-Muslims are worse than animals
    and grazing cattle: cattle only do what they were created to do, but
    these people were created to worship Allah alone without associating
    partners with Him, but they worship others with Him, even though
    evidence has been established against them and Messengers have been
    sent to them.

    Allah hurls further insults to the Jews and Christians if they do not
    accept the Qur’an. Allah says in Qur’an 4:47 that the Qur’an confirms
    the books sent before it; the people of the book are cursed if they do
    not believe in the Qur’an. Because of this calumny Allah may efface
    their faces. According to ibn Kathir effacing means turning them
    blind; turn their faces backward means to put their faces on their
    backs and make them walk backwards, and curse them means to turn them
    into animals.

    Allah says in Qur’an 6:122 that He raises the believers from the dead
    and provides them with light to enable them to move among the
    disbelievers; but the unbelievers move in total darkness.

    Commenting on this verse Maulana Abul Ala Maududi, a modern exegete of
    the Qur’an writes (Tafheem ul Quran commentary number 6/88):

    ‘Death’ signifies here the state of ignorance and lack of
    consciousness, whereas ‘life’ denotes the state of knowledge and true
    cognition, the state of awareness of Reality. He, who cannot
    distinguish between right and wrong and does not know the Straight Way
    for human life, may be alive on the biological plane, but his
    essential humanity is not. He may be a living animal but is certainly
    not a living human being. A living human being is one who can
    distinguish right from wrong, good from evil, honesty from dishonesty.

    Readers should note that ‘Straight Way’ means Islam. The gist of
    Maududi’s comment is that a human being who does not accept Islam is a
    living animal.

    FP: So what should happen to these lowest of animals according to
    Islam?

    Kasem: Islam decrees that they be slaughtered Islamically, just in the
    manner as animals are killed, that is, by beheading.

    http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.politics.bush/2008-07/msg00408.html

  62. Anand said

    Cool responses.

    First off, I wasn’t making commentary on the Iraq war and Palin’s positions. Just for the record, I think Palin is a remarkbly mediocre candidate. I also am not going to defend the positions of various political movt (e.g. pro-life/anti-gay ) and their callow rhetoric .

    I was making what I hoped was a fundamental point about what abortion is and that it is categorically dissimilar to war and hunting. Never mind mitigating circumstances, it is still fundamentally the termination of the life of a human being. And since this discussion is about human rights, what right is more fundamental than the right to life?

    Women do have the choice – if you don’t want kids, don’t pro-create. And i think the abortion debate is ultimately about sexual freedom – if we demand to live promisciously, then abortion is the trump card, in case other methods of birth control fail. If we obeyed that commandmant against adultery, 90% of abortions wouldn’t happen.

    Maybe we should start calling abortion the ‘final solution to pregnancy’ rather than ‘termination of pregnancy’ to see it for what it really is.

    Now while the principle is intrinsically uncontroversial, the practical applications can be murky. So while I think abortion is murder, I am not sure if I would repeal Roe v Wade immediately (if I had the power), because people would still have abortions, but in back-alleys, and quack clinics. I’d much rather strive for a change of hearts and minds.

    On human rights :

    Sorry for hijacking your post, Jingo.

    I find the description of the meaning of human rights as for the betterment of mankind slightly odd. What/Who defines better?

    Everyone practices discrimination, in the fundamental sense of the word. And do I detect a hint of fundamentalist rage when you say “jam a feeding tube down our throats and feed us with their regurgitated faeces.”😉 (btw, regurgitated faeces is really confused physiology.) It is really easy to lay the smackdown on a strawman isn’t it?

    The failing of religious conservatives is that they often refuse to tackle philosophical/ideological differences for the common good.

  63. Cherubim said

    Dear Chandran,

    You seem to be a well-read chap, however you tend to choose selective writings of Pakistani Islamist, and one 13th century scholar. Qudos to you for reading their works. However, you do realize that there are hundreds and thousands of other Muslim scholars and writers, right?

    Let’s get back to the Quranic verses, shall we?

    [Quran 25:44]
    Ahmed Raza Khan: Mohammed Aqib Qadri:
    Or do you think that most of them hear or understand something? They are not but like the cattle – in fact more astray from the path than them!

    Yusuf Ali:
    Or thinkest thou that most of them listen or understand? They are only like cattle;- nay, they are worse astray in Path.

    Pickthal:
    Or deemest thou that most of them hear or understand? They are but as the cattle – nay, but they are farther astray?

    Pretty much it’s about how people who are non-believers being lost in the dark in need of direction. The humanity remains. Personally I think it’s the most common lip service for all of the writings in any holy book in the world. “Non-believers of (insert religion/theology/philosophy here) are lost and in need of direction”. Heck, even Buddhist teachings have something along those lines in their text. It’s just metaphor, dude.

    [Quran 6:122]
    Ahmed Raza Khan: Mohammed Aqib Qadri:
    And will the one who was dead and so We raised him to life and set for him a light with which he walks among the people, ever be like the one who is in realms of darkness never to emerge from them? Similarly, the deeds of disbelievers are made to appear good to them.

    Yusuf Ali:
    Can he who was dead, to whom We gave life, and a light whereby he can walk amongst men, be like him who is in the depths of darkness, from which he can never come out? Thus to those without faith their own deeds seem pleasing.

    Pickthal:
    Is he who was dead and We have raised him unto life, and set for him a light wherein he walketh among men, as him whose similitude is in utter darkness whence he cannot emerge? Thus is their conduct made fairseeming for the disbelievers.

    Same as the verse above. Without religion man is lost. Again, a metaphor.

    [Quran 4:47]
    Ahmed Raza Khan: Mohammed Aqib Qadri:
    O People given the Book(s)! Believe in what We have sent down confirming the Book which you possess, before We transform some faces so turning them towards their backs, or curse them like We had cursed the people of Sabth; and (know that) the Allah’s command is always carried out!

    Yusuf Ali:
    O ye People of the Book! believe in what We have (now) revealed, confirming what was (already) with you, before We change the face and fame of some (of you) beyond all recognition, and turn them hindwards, or curse them as We cursed the Sabbath-breakers, for the decision of Allah Must be carried out.

    Pickthal:
    O ye unto whom the Scripture hath been given! Believe in what We have revealed confirming that which ye possess, before We destroy countenances so as to confound them, or curse them as We cursed the Sabbath-breakers (of old time). The commandment of Allah is always executed.

    People of the book has always been all of those who follow the Abrahamic faith, being Christian, Jews, and Muslims. Ibn Khatir’s prediction that people would turn mad, blind and turned inside out didn’t seem to work for the other 4 billion++ non-Muslims even after 30+ years of his death so I figured well, he is human and not exactly a vessel of God’s will. Personally, I believe that it refers to those who believe in Allah’s Abrahamic faiths to accept to Quran as an ‘updated’ version of the word of Allah. The usual ‘we curse you’ is again, standard lip service. 1500 years ago it was okay to do that, considering the other texts of other religion that I’ve read it was the style of the period. It is again a metaphor, and honestly I do not think I’m qualified to comment further on this text, but I think I’ve answered it best that I can.

    You must remember Chandran, though I cannot deny the existence of nutters who believe in violence, there are also Muslims like me who believe in peace and harmony, in all its’ cheesiness. To fear without reason is folly. Try reading the works of reasonable Muslim scholars too, okay love? It’s scary to live in a world filled with rabid Islamists wanting your blood, so lighten up, okay?

  64. Cherubim said

    Urm, forgive me the 30+ was referring to the Maulana’s death. Ibn Khatir was from the 13th century, so the correct numerals would be 700+ years. X).

  65. jingoisticbuthornydesperado said

    Anand,

    At what stage of pregnancy is the embryo defined as human? If it is free unprotected sex a result of pregnancy even with sex education, then I believe it is wrong to terminate pregnancy.

    Human rights were created for the luxury of man. Otherwise, what is it used for? Some people only manipulated human rights to fight for selfish course.

    Read my original blog post again about discrimination and the freedom of conscience. WHat I later said was

    “They want to have the freedom to practise what they ‘THINK’ is right and have us forced into their way of practice and thinking. Allowing others to do ‘wrong’ is to deny the zealots to practise what their conscience says is ‘RIGHT’ (as dictated by holy scriptures which were written by men). So to cut it short, they support discrimination! They rather have children orphaned and deny them a happy family. They rather have loving nurturing couple live a life of disappointment and inhibiting them from spreading the love. ”

    Philosophy and ideology are about reason, religion is about faith. Reason and faith are very odd paradoxical combination. the only common ground they share are ethics but even in ethics REASON dictates that there is only relative moral while religion is based on FAITH in absolute moral.

  66. Madame said

    Anand,

    You do know, ofcourse that even with birth control methods…pregnancy does occur? The chances are actually not that remote ;)Also, sometimes you do get caught up in the ‘heat of the moment’ and precautions are thrown to the wind😀 Should we expect this person then to pay a life time debt for her mistake? Should we expect the child to pay for its mother’s mistake? Bcoz more often than not, the mother’s resentment is transferred to the child.

    I stand by my pro-choice stance bcoz in the end, if the parents-to-be are unprepared in any way or even resentful of the pregnancy, the resulting baby’s chances of having a sound and well-balanced childhood are slim to none. I always say this…No child asked to be born into this world, we parents made the decision and so you had better be sure that you are well prepared.

    Teenage pregnancies are totally abhorrent to me bcoz I find that the expectant girl is still very much a child and so it would be a case of a child raising a child! Very sad….

    Believe me, I have seen many case studies where I have literally wanted to ask the parents….What were you thinking? Why did you have a child?

  67. […] Human rights (Part 1: zealots, China and Sarah Palin)Humans are notoriously selfish, and the corrupted democratic party under Chiang Kai Shek in China or corrupted Southern Vietnamese government where American aid went into the Southern Vietnamese elitists rather than the population, … […]

  68. […] Human rights (Part 1: zealots, China and Sarah Palin)Humans are notoriously selfish, and the corrupted democratic party under Chiang Kai Shek in China or corrupted Southern Vietnamese government where American aid went into the Southern Vietnamese elitists rather than the population, … […]

  69. […] Human rights (Part 1: zealots, China and Sarah Palin)Humans are notoriously selfish, and the corrupted democratic party under Chiang Kai Shek in China or corrupted Southern Vietnamese government where American aid went into the Southern Vietnamese elitists rather than the population, … […]

  70. Anand said

    Jingo, apologies for this belated reply (been rather occupied with work). Much like a mosquito in a nudist colony, I don’t know where to begin…….Brief snippets like these cannot begin to scratch the surface of these complex issues, and we ought really to talk more when we meet next time.

    When is an embryo defined as human? Well, very simply when it is conceived. Within the zygote is an already fully programmed individuality, like eye colour etc. After all, to grow a human brain, one must be a human.

    Your next statement(“If it is free unprotected sex a result of pregnancy even with sex education, then I believe it is wrong to terminate pregnancy.”) is rather curious. Why is it wrong to terminate a pregnancy in that situation and not others? What makes that act wrong? Murder, by definition is the willful termination of a human life. Period. (of course, in the case of pregnancy, the woman wouldn’t have her period). Maybe we shouldn’t call it “termination of pregnancy”, but rather “Final Solution to pregnancy”

    If morality is relative, I gather that you don’t have any right to attack the Christian right. After all, by what common standard can you judge their actions? What’s wrong with discrimination? You may not like it……but are we to base our morality on your feelings?

    Human rights a luxury? In that case, I guess abortion is fine, since we can arbitrarily decide who to extend rights to(pregnant women, yes, unborn fetuses, no). But who makes that decision? And why not get rid of rights for some other classes of citizens too, like homosexuals? If it’s all based on consensus, then its fine for a majority to eradicate the minority. I suppose Hitler’s only crime was losing the war.

    Philosophically speaking, there’s nothing wrong with the beliefs of the Christian right. That was the point of my earlier comment. The problem is the Right has not formulated a public philosophy. As one rabbi said, Christians speak of “Justice” but they really mean “Just-us”. One of the hallmarks of true biblical faith is the fact that one has the free-will to follow one’s conscience, whether that leads you to God or away from him. Therefore, the Christian ought to agree with Voltaire when he said “I disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to death your right to say it”.

    I could ramble on, but I think this will suffice for now. The issue of moral relativism will crop up I’m sure, and I’ll be happy to refute it then.

    Let the slug-fest begin….

  71. jingoisticbuthornydesperado said

    Anand,
    at which stage of the embryo or feotus do you think the being starts to have consciousness or a sense of self?
    When a pregnant mother has health problems whereby it might lead to the death of either the mother, the child or both, what is the mother suppose to choose? By choosing to abort, by your definition, the mother is committing a murder. But if the mother chooses to have the baby but the casualty happens to be the mum instead, the mum has now committed a ‘sin’, which is a suicide. In the worst case scenario it could end up leading to death of both, hence it will now be a combination of suicide and murder! Doesn’t a dogmatic absolutist moralist find himself in a self-perpetuating paradoxical cycle of moral dilemma? Mind you, the mum has prior knowledge of what are the HIGHLY possible consequences.

    I am not attacking Christian right. Read carefully, what I have to say and what I have said before. I am merely using a ‘constructive approach’ in critisizing religious fanatism and dogmatism.😀 I am not against progressive practitioners. Christianity has undergone great transformation since it was founded two millenia ago. In the days of old, Galileo and Darwin had been regarded as heretic for going against the common misconception (as encouraged by fanatic dogmatism) that the universe DOES NOT revolve around the earth, and that the earth has much more history to it than 5 millenia. So if you think dogmatic absolutistism is absolutely correct, think again…..😉 In fact, capitalism which YOU ARE PART OF now has its roots to reformed chrisianity or the be more specific Calvinism. It is about accumulating and creating wealth through hardwork (while not using the wealth for own selfish purposed) to seek reassurance with God to go to heaven. You would have been a heretic yourself in the dogmatism of the middle ages. So if you think Christianity itself has been absolutist throughout its 2000 years histroy, think again.

    Just another example what harm can absolutism do: Zealots here I mean religious fanatics who are ever so dogmatic about a strict certain aspects of interpretation of the holy scipt be it Bible or the Quran or anything else. In Islamic world in the past, the various interpretation of the Quran by Muslims scholars have served to limit the absolute power of Muslim monarchs or dictators bringing to a balance and prosperous society. It is only in recent years where people start adhering to the strict form Wahhabism intepretation (becoming a coded law) of the Quran where the balance is tipped in favour of Muslim dictators hence its current political conflict.

    In fact it is to my believe than human rights and survival of the community is greatly interlinked and dependent on each other. Neither is completely right or completely wrong. Homosexuals deserve equal rights because they do no harm to the long term survival and welfare of the collective community. Human rights are pyramidical arrangement of self-interests for a long term survivability. The base of the pyramid is a shelter and food, our fundamental instinct to survive. That is the most important of all. Yes, relatively speaking, human rights further up the pyramid is a luxury (for example freedom of speech or one’s right to what path of spiritaulity) IF AND ONLY IF we have shelter and food in our stomach. Would you think of freedom of speech when you are close to starvation? Also if you can turn back time, would you eliminate Hitler before the horrors of world war 2 happened for the sake of collective welfare? By doing so, aren’t you violating Hitler’s human rights?

    One problem that I tend to frown upon is the individualistic nature of some religions. The relationship with the community is usually at the top of the pecking order relative to the individual relationship between the practioner and God. That is detrimental to the survivability of a community at the cost of an individual. But the problem is that usually many of these individualists fail to see is that if the community fails, there wouldn’t be any individual at all. Can you honestly be where you are without an electrical engineer running the power station to power-up your electrical appliances or a farmer farming the food that you need for your own sustenance?

    Like you, I thrive in controversy and i get adrenaline rush from the thrill.;)

    be careful of what you wish for😀

  72. I actually enjoyed reading this write-up.Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: