2 years ago
Monday, March 31, 2008
Monday, March 24, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Mafia's 'Ten Commandments' found
This is really interesting. I don't know how these people earn money if "9. Money cannot be appropriated if it belongs to others or to other families. "
I wonder how far this idea of "others" would go.
I wonder how far this idea of "others" would go.
SMS Jokes
همیشه پشت سر هر مرد موفق ، زنی هست که نتوانسته جلوی موفقیتش را بگیرد
اصفهانیه با زیر پیراهنی میره تو برف ، ازش می پرسن:چرا لختی ، میگه: دوتا پنی سیلین دارم که تاریخش داره تمام میشه
مباني کامپيوتر: آن بخش از يك سيستم را كه ميتوان با چكش خرد كرد، سختافزار و آن قسمت را كه فقط ميتوان به آن فحش داد، نرمافزار ميگويند!!
به غضنفر ميگن چراگوشات قرمزه ؟ميگه اخه چش خورده/بهش ميكن كي اخه تو رو چش ميزنه.ميگه اون چش نه؟چش شلوار خورده
سه تا پیر زن می خوان واسه خودشون شوهر پیدا کنن آگهي می دن با یکی ازدواج کنید 2تا جایزه بگیرید
در پی اختلاف نظر علما در مورد اینکه شب چهارشنبه سوری 22 است یا 29. روز 22 اسفند یوم الشک و از 22 تا 29 اسفند هفته ی وحشت اعلام شد
3 نفر ميميرن . خدا گفت اولي بره بهشت . دومي بره جهنم . سومي بره طويله !!! پرسيدن چرا ؟ خدا گفت :اولي زن داشت دنيا براش جهنم بود . دومي مجرد بود ، دنيا براش بهشت بود . سومي زنش مرد ولي خاک بر سر بعدش رفت يه زن ديگه گرفت
shekspear mige: ya be andazeye arezoohatoon talash konid ya be andazeye talashetoon arezoo konid. tarjomeye torki: agar nemitooni goh bokhori, goh mikhori goh bokhori.
آخرين کلمات يک ديوانه: من يه پرنده‌ام،
آخرين کلمات يک غواص: نه اين طرفها کوسه وجود نداره،
آخرين کلمات يک خبرنگار: بله، سيل داره به طرفمون مياد،
آخرين کلمات يک شکارچي: مامانت کجاست کوچولو؟،
آخرين کلمات يک جهانگرد در آمازون: اين نوع مار رو ميشناسم، سمي نيست،
آخرين کلمات يک متخصص آزمايشگاه: اين آزمايش کاملاً بي خطره،
آخرين کلمات يک نارنجک‌انداز : گفتي تا چند بشمرم؟،
آخرين کلمات يک متخصص خنثي کردن بمب : اين سيم آخري رو که قط كن
جملات رمانتيک ويژه پيچوندن :
- آرزوي من خوشبختي توست، با من باشي يا نباشي فرقي نميکنه!!
- خودم هم نمي دونم چيکار ميخوام بکنم.نميخوام تو به آتيش من بسوزي!!!
- تو هم خوشگلي،هم باهوشي،هم زرنگي.. .آدمهايي خيلي بهتر از من گيرت مياد!!
- ما مدلهاي ذهنيمون با هم فرق ميکنه!! هيچ پروسيجري براي تلفيق اين دو مدل نداريم!!
- تاکيد مداوم بر برخي جملات شريعتي:"اگر عشق دوام يابد،به ابتذال ميکشد
گونه جوادها را بشناسيم؟ ?) تفريح رفتن با وانت رو خيلي مي پسندن ?) شلوار پارچه اي رو با کتوني مپوشن ?) پشت مو حتما مي ذارن ?) عاشق رنگ قرمز پر رنگ هستن ?) تو کافي شاپ آب دوغ خيار سفا رش ميدن ?) خوانندگان مورد علاقه شان جواد يساري . عباس قادري وداوود بهبودي ?) با موبايل روشن ميرن تو کتاب خونه ?) لباس كاموايي رو ميذارن تو شلوارشون
رشتي با احساس از زنش ميپرسه شب عروسيمون يادت مياد زن:آره, چقدر جات خالي بود
اگر یه نقطه آبی روی دیوار دیدی، بدون یه مورچه است که شلوار لی پوشیده! اگر یه نقطه قرمز روی دیوار دیدی، بدون یه مورچه است که ماتیک زده! اگر یه نقطه سبز روی دیوار دیدی، بدون گشت ارشااد مورچه هاست که اومده هردوشون رو بگیره
اصفهانیه با زیر پیراهنی میره تو برف ، ازش می پرسن:چرا لختی ، میگه: دوتا پنی سیلین دارم که تاریخش داره تمام میشه
مباني کامپيوتر: آن بخش از يك سيستم را كه ميتوان با چكش خرد كرد، سختافزار و آن قسمت را كه فقط ميتوان به آن فحش داد، نرمافزار ميگويند!!
به غضنفر ميگن چراگوشات قرمزه ؟ميگه اخه چش خورده/بهش ميكن كي اخه تو رو چش ميزنه.ميگه اون چش نه؟چش شلوار خورده
سه تا پیر زن می خوان واسه خودشون شوهر پیدا کنن آگهي می دن با یکی ازدواج کنید 2تا جایزه بگیرید
در پی اختلاف نظر علما در مورد اینکه شب چهارشنبه سوری 22 است یا 29. روز 22 اسفند یوم الشک و از 22 تا 29 اسفند هفته ی وحشت اعلام شد
3 نفر ميميرن . خدا گفت اولي بره بهشت . دومي بره جهنم . سومي بره طويله !!! پرسيدن چرا ؟ خدا گفت :اولي زن داشت دنيا براش جهنم بود . دومي مجرد بود ، دنيا براش بهشت بود . سومي زنش مرد ولي خاک بر سر بعدش رفت يه زن ديگه گرفت
shekspear mige: ya be andazeye arezoohatoon talash konid ya be andazeye talashetoon arezoo konid. tarjomeye torki: agar nemitooni goh bokhori, goh mikhori goh bokhori.
آخرين کلمات يک ديوانه: من يه پرنده‌ام،
آخرين کلمات يک غواص: نه اين طرفها کوسه وجود نداره،
آخرين کلمات يک خبرنگار: بله، سيل داره به طرفمون مياد،
آخرين کلمات يک شکارچي: مامانت کجاست کوچولو؟،
آخرين کلمات يک جهانگرد در آمازون: اين نوع مار رو ميشناسم، سمي نيست،
آخرين کلمات يک متخصص آزمايشگاه: اين آزمايش کاملاً بي خطره،
آخرين کلمات يک نارنجک‌انداز : گفتي تا چند بشمرم؟،
آخرين کلمات يک متخصص خنثي کردن بمب : اين سيم آخري رو که قط كن
جملات رمانتيک ويژه پيچوندن :
- آرزوي من خوشبختي توست، با من باشي يا نباشي فرقي نميکنه!!
- خودم هم نمي دونم چيکار ميخوام بکنم.نميخوام تو به آتيش من بسوزي!!!
- تو هم خوشگلي،هم باهوشي،هم زرنگي.. .آدمهايي خيلي بهتر از من گيرت مياد!!
- ما مدلهاي ذهنيمون با هم فرق ميکنه!! هيچ پروسيجري براي تلفيق اين دو مدل نداريم!!
- تاکيد مداوم بر برخي جملات شريعتي:"اگر عشق دوام يابد،به ابتذال ميکشد
گونه جوادها را بشناسيم؟ ?) تفريح رفتن با وانت رو خيلي مي پسندن ?) شلوار پارچه اي رو با کتوني مپوشن ?) پشت مو حتما مي ذارن ?) عاشق رنگ قرمز پر رنگ هستن ?) تو کافي شاپ آب دوغ خيار سفا رش ميدن ?) خوانندگان مورد علاقه شان جواد يساري . عباس قادري وداوود بهبودي ?) با موبايل روشن ميرن تو کتاب خونه ?) لباس كاموايي رو ميذارن تو شلوارشون
رشتي با احساس از زنش ميپرسه شب عروسيمون يادت مياد زن:آره, چقدر جات خالي بود
اگر یه نقطه آبی روی دیوار دیدی، بدون یه مورچه است که شلوار لی پوشیده! اگر یه نقطه قرمز روی دیوار دیدی، بدون یه مورچه است که ماتیک زده! اگر یه نقطه سبز روی دیوار دیدی، بدون گشت ارشااد مورچه هاست که اومده هردوشون رو بگیره
Friday, March 14, 2008
Life on Earth 'began on a radioactive beach'
By Nic Fleming, Science Correspondent
Life on Earth began on a radioactive beach, a scientist claimed today.
Bondi Beach, Sydney - Life on Earth 'began on a radioactive beach'
According to computer models, deposits could collect at a beach's high tide mark in sufficient quantity to trigger fission reactions
The sifting and collection of radioactive material by powerful tides could have generated the complex molecules that led to the evolution of carbon-based life forms - including plants, animals and humans.
While radiation may seem an unlikely candidate to kick-start life because it breaks chemical bonds and splits large molecules, it also crucially provides chemical energy needed to generate some of the basic building blocks of life.
Zachary Adam, an astrobiologist at the University of Washington in Seattle, has suggested the collection of radioactive material on a beach as a new theory for the origins of life - to be added to the existing long and varied list of hypotheses.
One is its emergence from a "primordial soup" of simple organic chemicals accumulated on the surface of bodies of water within the hydrogen-rich early atmosphere - formulated in the 1920's by English geneticist J. B. S. Haldane and Russian biochemist Alexander Oparin.
Others include early life forming in inorganic clay, the initial energy coming not from chemical reactions but from sunlight or lightening and the arrival of microscopic seeds of terrestrial life on chunks of meteorites or comets, and the intervention of a divine, intelligent designer.
advertisement
In work highlighted in this week's New Scientist magazine, Mr Adam suggests the more powerful tides generated by the moon's closer orbit billions of years ago compared to today could have sorted radioactive material from other sediment.
According to his computer models, deposits could collect at a beach's high tide mark in sufficient quantity to trigger the self-sustaining fission reactions - as occur in natural seams of uranium.
Mr Adam demonstrated in laboratory experiments that such a deposit could produce the chemical energy to generate some of the molecules in water which produce amino acids and sugars - key building blocks of life - when irradiated.
A deposit of a radioactive material called monazite would also release soluble phosphate, another important ingredient for life, into the gaps between sand grains - making it accessible to react in water.
Mr Adam told the New Scientist: "Amino acids, sugars and [soluble] phosphate can all be produced simultaneously in a radioactive beach environment."
For the original article click on the title of the post.
Life on Earth began on a radioactive beach, a scientist claimed today.
Bondi Beach, Sydney - Life on Earth 'began on a radioactive beach'
According to computer models, deposits could collect at a beach's high tide mark in sufficient quantity to trigger fission reactions
The sifting and collection of radioactive material by powerful tides could have generated the complex molecules that led to the evolution of carbon-based life forms - including plants, animals and humans.
While radiation may seem an unlikely candidate to kick-start life because it breaks chemical bonds and splits large molecules, it also crucially provides chemical energy needed to generate some of the basic building blocks of life.
Zachary Adam, an astrobiologist at the University of Washington in Seattle, has suggested the collection of radioactive material on a beach as a new theory for the origins of life - to be added to the existing long and varied list of hypotheses.
One is its emergence from a "primordial soup" of simple organic chemicals accumulated on the surface of bodies of water within the hydrogen-rich early atmosphere - formulated in the 1920's by English geneticist J. B. S. Haldane and Russian biochemist Alexander Oparin.
Others include early life forming in inorganic clay, the initial energy coming not from chemical reactions but from sunlight or lightening and the arrival of microscopic seeds of terrestrial life on chunks of meteorites or comets, and the intervention of a divine, intelligent designer.
advertisement
In work highlighted in this week's New Scientist magazine, Mr Adam suggests the more powerful tides generated by the moon's closer orbit billions of years ago compared to today could have sorted radioactive material from other sediment.
According to his computer models, deposits could collect at a beach's high tide mark in sufficient quantity to trigger the self-sustaining fission reactions - as occur in natural seams of uranium.
Mr Adam demonstrated in laboratory experiments that such a deposit could produce the chemical energy to generate some of the molecules in water which produce amino acids and sugars - key building blocks of life - when irradiated.
A deposit of a radioactive material called monazite would also release soluble phosphate, another important ingredient for life, into the gaps between sand grains - making it accessible to react in water.
Mr Adam told the New Scientist: "Amino acids, sugars and [soluble] phosphate can all be produced simultaneously in a radioactive beach environment."
For the original article click on the title of the post.
Monday, February 25, 2008
America's Unfaithful Faithful
A major new survey presents perhaps the most detailed picture we've yet had of which religious groups Americans belong to. And its big message is: blink and they'll change. For the first time, a large-scale study has quantified what many experts suspect: there is a constant membership turnover among most American faiths. America's religious culture, which is best known for its high participation rates, may now be equally famous (or infamous) for what the new report dubs "churn."
ADVERTISEMENT
The report, released today by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, is the first selection of data from a 35,000- person poll called the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. Says Pew Forum director Luis Lugo, Americans "not only change jobs, change where they live, and change spouses, but they change religions too. We totally knew it was happening, but this survey enabled us to document it clearly."
According to Pew, 28% of American adults have left the faith of their childhood for another one. And that does not even include those who switched from one Protestant denomination to another; if it did, the number would jump to 44%. Says Greg Smith, one of the main researchers for the "Landscape" data, churn applies across the board. "There's no group that is simply winning or simply losing," he says. "Nothing is static. Every group is simultaneously winning and losing."
For some groups, their relatively steady number of adherents over the years hides a remarkable amount of coming and going. Simply counting Catholics since 1972,for example, you would get the impression that its population had remained fairly static - at about 25% of adult Americans (the current number is 23.9%). But the Pew report shows that of all those raised Catholic, a third have left the church. (That means that roughly one out of every 10 people in America is a former Catholic, and that ex-Catholics are almost as numerous as the America's second biggest religious group, Southern Baptists.) But Catholicism has made up for the losses by adding converts (2.6% of the population) and, more significantly, enjoying an influx of new immigratns, mostly Hispanic.
An even more extreme example of what might be called "masked churn" is the relatively tiny Jehovah's Witnesses, with a turnover rate of about two-thirds. That means that two-thirds of the people who told Pew they were raised Jehovah's Witnesses no longer are - yet the group attracts roughly the same number of converts. Notes Lugo, "No wonder they have to keep on knocking on doors."
The single biggest "winner," in terms of number gained versus number lost, was not a religious group at all, but the "unaffiliated" category. About 16% of those polled defined their religious affiliation that way (including people who regarded themselves as religious, along with atheists and agnostics); only 7% had been brought up that way. That's an impressive gain, but Lugo points out that churn is everywhere: even the unaffiliated group lost 50% of its original membership to one church or another.
The report does not speculate on the implications of its data. But Lugo suggests, "What it says is that this marketplace is highly competitive and that no one can sit on their laurels, because another group out there will make [its tenets] available" for potential converts to try out. While this dynamic "may be partly responsible for the religious vitality of the American people," he says, "it also suggests that there is an institutional loosening of ties," with less individual commitment to a given faith or denomination.
Lugo would not speculate on whether such a buyer's market might cause some groups to dilute their particular beliefs in order to compete. There are signs of that in such surveys as one done by the Willow Creek megachurch outside Chicago, which has been extremely successful in attracting tens of thousands of religious "seekers." An internal survey recently indicated much of its membership was "stalled" in their spiritual growth, Lugo allowed that "it does raise the question of, once you attract these folks, how do you root them within your own particular tradition when people are changing so quickly."
The Pew report has other interesting findings; the highest rates for marrying within one's own faith, for example, are among Hindus (90%) and Mormons (83%)). The full report is accessible at the Pew Forum site.
ADVERTISEMENT
The report, released today by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, is the first selection of data from a 35,000- person poll called the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. Says Pew Forum director Luis Lugo, Americans "not only change jobs, change where they live, and change spouses, but they change religions too. We totally knew it was happening, but this survey enabled us to document it clearly."
According to Pew, 28% of American adults have left the faith of their childhood for another one. And that does not even include those who switched from one Protestant denomination to another; if it did, the number would jump to 44%. Says Greg Smith, one of the main researchers for the "Landscape" data, churn applies across the board. "There's no group that is simply winning or simply losing," he says. "Nothing is static. Every group is simultaneously winning and losing."
For some groups, their relatively steady number of adherents over the years hides a remarkable amount of coming and going. Simply counting Catholics since 1972,for example, you would get the impression that its population had remained fairly static - at about 25% of adult Americans (the current number is 23.9%). But the Pew report shows that of all those raised Catholic, a third have left the church. (That means that roughly one out of every 10 people in America is a former Catholic, and that ex-Catholics are almost as numerous as the America's second biggest religious group, Southern Baptists.) But Catholicism has made up for the losses by adding converts (2.6% of the population) and, more significantly, enjoying an influx of new immigratns, mostly Hispanic.
An even more extreme example of what might be called "masked churn" is the relatively tiny Jehovah's Witnesses, with a turnover rate of about two-thirds. That means that two-thirds of the people who told Pew they were raised Jehovah's Witnesses no longer are - yet the group attracts roughly the same number of converts. Notes Lugo, "No wonder they have to keep on knocking on doors."
The single biggest "winner," in terms of number gained versus number lost, was not a religious group at all, but the "unaffiliated" category. About 16% of those polled defined their religious affiliation that way (including people who regarded themselves as religious, along with atheists and agnostics); only 7% had been brought up that way. That's an impressive gain, but Lugo points out that churn is everywhere: even the unaffiliated group lost 50% of its original membership to one church or another.
The report does not speculate on the implications of its data. But Lugo suggests, "What it says is that this marketplace is highly competitive and that no one can sit on their laurels, because another group out there will make [its tenets] available" for potential converts to try out. While this dynamic "may be partly responsible for the religious vitality of the American people," he says, "it also suggests that there is an institutional loosening of ties," with less individual commitment to a given faith or denomination.
Lugo would not speculate on whether such a buyer's market might cause some groups to dilute their particular beliefs in order to compete. There are signs of that in such surveys as one done by the Willow Creek megachurch outside Chicago, which has been extremely successful in attracting tens of thousands of religious "seekers." An internal survey recently indicated much of its membership was "stalled" in their spiritual growth, Lugo allowed that "it does raise the question of, once you attract these folks, how do you root them within your own particular tradition when people are changing so quickly."
The Pew report has other interesting findings; the highest rates for marrying within one's own faith, for example, are among Hindus (90%) and Mormons (83%)). The full report is accessible at the Pew Forum site.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
عکسی که ۲۵ سال سانسور شد
نفر سمت راست گوشه، ابوالحسن بنی صدر است . او که با ۱۱ میلیون رای نخستین رئیس جمهور ایران شده بود، با جمله تاریخی آیت الله خمینی در 25 خرداد 60:" 35 میلیون نفر بگویند بله، من میگویم نه." کنار زده شد . 7 تن از مشاورانش اعدام شدند ، هزاران تن از هوادارنش به زندان رفتند و خودش رهسپار تبعید شد.
درست بالای سر خمین ی، مرد روحانی با عمامه سفید آیت الله لاهوتی ا ست. او که از زندانیان با سابقه قبل از انقلاب به همراه منتظری و طالقانی بو د، بعد از پیروزی انقلاب از سرسخت ترین هواداران رئیس جمهور بنی صدر، به شمار میرفت . به فاصله 2 ماه پس از کنار زدن بنی صدر توسط لاجوردی به زندان اوین برده شد و اعدام شد. جمله معروف او خطاب به سران حزب جمهوری (بهشتی، خامنه ای و رفسنجانی) این است: "حاکمیت تک حزبی است که صدای پای فاشیزم را به گوش میرساند . وای به حال آن انقلابی که 8 درصد به 80 درصد حکومت کنند . اگر زور میتوانست آدم را جای خودش بنشاند ، پیش از شما زورمندتر از شما بودند. شما جز اینکه خفقان ایجاد کنید و برای مردم مشکل درست کنید کار دیگری نمیکنید ."
نفرایستاده میان آیت الله مطهری و لاهوتی، صادق قطب زاده است. او که به همراه ابراهیم یزدی و بنی صدر راه انقلاب را در پاریس هموار کرده بود، 24 شهریور 1361، به اتهام توطئه انفجار جماران ، زندانی و اعدام شد . آیت الله منتظری بعدها در خاطراتش نوشت:
"بعدا شنيدم آقاي حاج احمد آقا در زندان سراغ آقاي قطب زاده رفته و به او گفته است شما مصلحتا اين مطالب را بگوييد و اقرار كنيد و بعد امام شمارا عفو ميكنند ، ولي او را اعدام كردند . بعدها از طريق موثقي شنيدم كه جريان ريختن مواد منفجره در چاه نزديك محل سكونت مرحوم امام بكلي جعلي است و واقعيت نداشته است."
پی نوشت : آن که در کنار بنی صدر ایستاده ، صادق طباطبایی است . سخنگوی دولت مهندس بازرگان بود . بعد به بازرگان پشت کرد و به صف حکومتی ها پیوست . در سال 61 به دلیل قاچاق 3.75 پوند تریاک توسط پلیس آلمان دستگیر و در دادگاه دوسلدورف به 3 سال زندان محکوم شد . با پادرمیانی وزیرخارجه آلمان و مصونیت سیاسی به عنوان عنصر نامطلوب از آن کشور اخراج شد . او همچنان به حمایت از جمهوری اسلامی ادامه میدهد.
درست بالای سر خمین ی، مرد روحانی با عمامه سفید آیت الله لاهوتی ا ست. او که از زندانیان با سابقه قبل از انقلاب به همراه منتظری و طالقانی بو د، بعد از پیروزی انقلاب از سرسخت ترین هواداران رئیس جمهور بنی صدر، به شمار میرفت . به فاصله 2 ماه پس از کنار زدن بنی صدر توسط لاجوردی به زندان اوین برده شد و اعدام شد. جمله معروف او خطاب به سران حزب جمهوری (بهشتی، خامنه ای و رفسنجانی) این است: "حاکمیت تک حزبی است که صدای پای فاشیزم را به گوش میرساند . وای به حال آن انقلابی که 8 درصد به 80 درصد حکومت کنند . اگر زور میتوانست آدم را جای خودش بنشاند ، پیش از شما زورمندتر از شما بودند. شما جز اینکه خفقان ایجاد کنید و برای مردم مشکل درست کنید کار دیگری نمیکنید ."
نفرایستاده میان آیت الله مطهری و لاهوتی، صادق قطب زاده است. او که به همراه ابراهیم یزدی و بنی صدر راه انقلاب را در پاریس هموار کرده بود، 24 شهریور 1361، به اتهام توطئه انفجار جماران ، زندانی و اعدام شد . آیت الله منتظری بعدها در خاطراتش نوشت:
"بعدا شنيدم آقاي حاج احمد آقا در زندان سراغ آقاي قطب زاده رفته و به او گفته است شما مصلحتا اين مطالب را بگوييد و اقرار كنيد و بعد امام شمارا عفو ميكنند ، ولي او را اعدام كردند . بعدها از طريق موثقي شنيدم كه جريان ريختن مواد منفجره در چاه نزديك محل سكونت مرحوم امام بكلي جعلي است و واقعيت نداشته است."
پی نوشت : آن که در کنار بنی صدر ایستاده ، صادق طباطبایی است . سخنگوی دولت مهندس بازرگان بود . بعد به بازرگان پشت کرد و به صف حکومتی ها پیوست . در سال 61 به دلیل قاچاق 3.75 پوند تریاک توسط پلیس آلمان دستگیر و در دادگاه دوسلدورف به 3 سال زندان محکوم شد . با پادرمیانی وزیرخارجه آلمان و مصونیت سیاسی به عنوان عنصر نامطلوب از آن کشور اخراج شد . او همچنان به حمایت از جمهوری اسلامی ادامه میدهد.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Monday, February 18, 2008
Archbishop's 8 March centennial message: Let Sharia Law govern women's lives, Amen!
Azar Majedi was born in Iran, and is a leading opponent of the regime. She chairs 'OWL', the Organization for Women's Liberation – Iran. She is the Editor of the feminist journal Medusa, and the author of Women's Rights vs Political Islam. www.azarmajedi.com
Perhaps Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury thought his statement about Sharia Law would be received enthusiastically as a well-intended effort to reduce racism and tension in society. However, his proposal got him into trouble. He was attacked from right and left. Those who saw their "white Christian culture" under threat asked for his resignation. Women's rights activists and secularists attacked him for the negative effects of Sharia Law on human rights, particularly the disastrous effects of such a practice on women in so-called Muslim communities. In response to harsh criticism he tried to qualify his proposal by stating that he did not mean the whole Sharia Law, but only family matters. He has just missed the point.
The status and rights of women in Islam is the Achilles heel of this religion, and I must add, ideology. Misogyny is the trade mark of Islam. The veil is its banner, and gender apartheid its main pillar. Moreover, today a very active reactionary political movement has based its ideology on Islam, namely political Islam. Anywhere they gain power the first thing they do is victimize women, strip them of all their rights, force them under the veil and segregate them in society. The same movement that laments lack of tolerance for Sharia law in western societies is terrorizing the population in societies under its rule to obey Sharia Law, observe the veil and gender apartheid and punishes the defiant by flogging, cutting their limbs and execution.
So, one main reason to oppose Sharia law is the way it treats women. Rowan Williams' promise that he only means the family code of Sharia law is no comfort to any woman living under the threat of losing her rights, nor to any girl who is frightened by "honor violence," forced marriage and veiling. In fact it only exposes his ignorance.
It may be argued that the Archbishop's intention is to combat racism. Let us examine whether his proposal is anti-racist. One might argue that he has taken Muslim's demands and culture into consideration, particularly when Muslims are increasingly being stigmatized. This assumption is false. Historically, the fight against racism has meant fighting for equality, not for differentiating; equality before the law and in social, economic and political sphere. Anti-racism has been about integration not segregation. The civil rights movement in America was not about creating a set of different laws for blacks, but treating blacks and whites equally. The essence of the long battle against racial apartheid in South Africa was to create one system and one law for all citizens, which treated them equally.
However, it is not only the Archbishop who espouses this upside-down approach to racial equality. This is a political trend. For this trend the meaning of anti-racism has changed from equality to differentiation, from integration to segregation. We owe this falsification to post modernism, which gave rise to cultural relativism and a high socio-political status to the concept of multi culturalism in this deformed interpretation of it.
Some misled section of the "intelligentsia," academia and political institutions have played a significant role in defending these concepts as progressive, libertarian, egalitarian and anti-racist. Reactionary political forces, such as political Islam have been the only beneficiaries of this trend. For decades gross violations of human rights in societies under Islam were neglected and even justified by these mal-formulated theories. Only when these brutal practices made an inroad into western societies in the form of terrorism, particularly after September 11, some outcries began to be heard.
Multiculturalism is racism; cultural relativism is racism; this should be recognized once and for all. By defining different laws for different citizens on the basis of such arbitrary concepts such as culture or religion, we leave the lot of the weakest sections of that so-called "cultural community" to the mercy of the self-imposed leaders of that community. We deprive these weakest sections of the protection of the law and society. Women under Islam are downtrodden and deprived of any rights. Leaving them under Sharia law will only victimize them further.
There are many fallacies involved in such an approach. One which is seemingly very liberal is the assumption that members of the "Muslim communities" will voluntarily resort to Sharia law. If Muslim women or children had any choice or voice, they would tell the Archbishop to keep these proposals to himself. The question of choice is non-existent in a hierarchical and deeply male chauvinist community. Allowing Sharia Law to be practiced will cut off the poor voiceless women from any protection and make life much more difficult for the young women who struggle with backward traditions at home.
Giving the Archbishop's intention the benefit of the doubt is the best case scenario. The other, to my opinion most probable scenario is that he is cunningly trying to strengthen the grip of religion and religious institutions on the society as a whole. By assigning a stronger position to Islam in "Muslim Communities" he is trying to foster the position of the church and Christianity in the wider society. If one accepts the role of Islam and Islamic laws in one community, by the same token, they should accept the role of Christianity and the Church of England in the larger community. His defense of Sharia Law is a clever step towards revitalizing the role of Church in the wider society.
And finally, as a veteran women's rights activist and one who has suffered first hand under a brutal Islamic state; as an activist who has fought hard against Islam and political Islam for liberty and equality, I am very indignant by Rowan Williams' proposal. We do not need to establish Sharia law in any form or shape. We need a secular, free society, free from racism, misogynism and inequality. We need to rid the society from religion and religious establishment, be it Muslim, Christian, Judaism or anything else.
14 February, 2008
Perhaps Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury thought his statement about Sharia Law would be received enthusiastically as a well-intended effort to reduce racism and tension in society. However, his proposal got him into trouble. He was attacked from right and left. Those who saw their "white Christian culture" under threat asked for his resignation. Women's rights activists and secularists attacked him for the negative effects of Sharia Law on human rights, particularly the disastrous effects of such a practice on women in so-called Muslim communities. In response to harsh criticism he tried to qualify his proposal by stating that he did not mean the whole Sharia Law, but only family matters. He has just missed the point.
The status and rights of women in Islam is the Achilles heel of this religion, and I must add, ideology. Misogyny is the trade mark of Islam. The veil is its banner, and gender apartheid its main pillar. Moreover, today a very active reactionary political movement has based its ideology on Islam, namely political Islam. Anywhere they gain power the first thing they do is victimize women, strip them of all their rights, force them under the veil and segregate them in society. The same movement that laments lack of tolerance for Sharia law in western societies is terrorizing the population in societies under its rule to obey Sharia Law, observe the veil and gender apartheid and punishes the defiant by flogging, cutting their limbs and execution.
So, one main reason to oppose Sharia law is the way it treats women. Rowan Williams' promise that he only means the family code of Sharia law is no comfort to any woman living under the threat of losing her rights, nor to any girl who is frightened by "honor violence," forced marriage and veiling. In fact it only exposes his ignorance.
It may be argued that the Archbishop's intention is to combat racism. Let us examine whether his proposal is anti-racist. One might argue that he has taken Muslim's demands and culture into consideration, particularly when Muslims are increasingly being stigmatized. This assumption is false. Historically, the fight against racism has meant fighting for equality, not for differentiating; equality before the law and in social, economic and political sphere. Anti-racism has been about integration not segregation. The civil rights movement in America was not about creating a set of different laws for blacks, but treating blacks and whites equally. The essence of the long battle against racial apartheid in South Africa was to create one system and one law for all citizens, which treated them equally.
However, it is not only the Archbishop who espouses this upside-down approach to racial equality. This is a political trend. For this trend the meaning of anti-racism has changed from equality to differentiation, from integration to segregation. We owe this falsification to post modernism, which gave rise to cultural relativism and a high socio-political status to the concept of multi culturalism in this deformed interpretation of it.
Some misled section of the "intelligentsia," academia and political institutions have played a significant role in defending these concepts as progressive, libertarian, egalitarian and anti-racist. Reactionary political forces, such as political Islam have been the only beneficiaries of this trend. For decades gross violations of human rights in societies under Islam were neglected and even justified by these mal-formulated theories. Only when these brutal practices made an inroad into western societies in the form of terrorism, particularly after September 11, some outcries began to be heard.
Multiculturalism is racism; cultural relativism is racism; this should be recognized once and for all. By defining different laws for different citizens on the basis of such arbitrary concepts such as culture or religion, we leave the lot of the weakest sections of that so-called "cultural community" to the mercy of the self-imposed leaders of that community. We deprive these weakest sections of the protection of the law and society. Women under Islam are downtrodden and deprived of any rights. Leaving them under Sharia law will only victimize them further.
There are many fallacies involved in such an approach. One which is seemingly very liberal is the assumption that members of the "Muslim communities" will voluntarily resort to Sharia law. If Muslim women or children had any choice or voice, they would tell the Archbishop to keep these proposals to himself. The question of choice is non-existent in a hierarchical and deeply male chauvinist community. Allowing Sharia Law to be practiced will cut off the poor voiceless women from any protection and make life much more difficult for the young women who struggle with backward traditions at home.
Giving the Archbishop's intention the benefit of the doubt is the best case scenario. The other, to my opinion most probable scenario is that he is cunningly trying to strengthen the grip of religion and religious institutions on the society as a whole. By assigning a stronger position to Islam in "Muslim Communities" he is trying to foster the position of the church and Christianity in the wider society. If one accepts the role of Islam and Islamic laws in one community, by the same token, they should accept the role of Christianity and the Church of England in the larger community. His defense of Sharia Law is a clever step towards revitalizing the role of Church in the wider society.
And finally, as a veteran women's rights activist and one who has suffered first hand under a brutal Islamic state; as an activist who has fought hard against Islam and political Islam for liberty and equality, I am very indignant by Rowan Williams' proposal. We do not need to establish Sharia law in any form or shape. We need a secular, free society, free from racism, misogynism and inequality. We need to rid the society from religion and religious establishment, be it Muslim, Christian, Judaism or anything else.
14 February, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Drink Personality
Before you order a drink in public, you should read this! Seven New York City bartenders were asked if they could 'nail' a woman's personality based on what she drinks. Though interviewed separately, they concurred on almost all counts.
The results:
PART A: WOMEN - DRINKS, WHO THEY ARE, & YOU!
Drink: Beer
Personality: Causal, low-maintenance; down to earth.
Your Approach: Challenge her to a game of pool.
Drink: Blender Drinks
Personality: Flaky, whiny, annoying; a pain in the ass.
Your Approach: Avoid her, unless you want to be her cabana boy.
Drink: Mixed Drinks
Personality: Older, more refined, high maintenance, has very picky taste; knows EXACTLY what she wants.
Your Approach: You won't have to approach her. If she's interested, she'll send YOU a drink.
Drink: Wine (does not include White Zinfandel)
Personality: Conservative and classy; sophisticated yet giggles.
Your Approach: Tell her you love to travel and spend quiet evenings with friends.
Drink: White Zinfandel
Personality: Easy; thinks she is classy and sophisticated, actually, she has NO clue.
Your Approach: Make her feel smarter than she is...this should be an easy target.
Drink: Shots
Personality: Likes to hang with frat-boy pals and looking to get totally drunk... and naked.
Your Approach: Easiest hit in the joint. You have been blessed. Nothing to do but wait, however, be careful not to make her mad!
Drink: Tequila
No explanations required - everyone just KNOWS what happens there.
PART B: MEN - DRINKS & WHO THE MEN ARE!
THEN, there is the MALE addendum --
The deal with guys is, as always, very simple and clear cut:
Domestic Beer: He's poor and wants to get laid.
Imported Beer: He likes good beer and wants to get laid.
Wine: He is hoping that the wine will give him a sophisticated image to help him get laid.
Whiskey: He doesn't give a damn about anything but getting laid.
Tequila: He is thinking he has a chance with the toothless waitress.
White Zinfandel: He's gay!!!
The results:
PART A: WOMEN - DRINKS, WHO THEY ARE, & YOU!
Drink: Beer
Personality: Causal, low-maintenance; down to earth.
Your Approach: Challenge her to a game of pool.
Drink: Blender Drinks
Personality: Flaky, whiny, annoying; a pain in the ass.
Your Approach: Avoid her, unless you want to be her cabana boy.
Drink: Mixed Drinks
Personality: Older, more refined, high maintenance, has very picky taste; knows EXACTLY what she wants.
Your Approach: You won't have to approach her. If she's interested, she'll send YOU a drink.
Drink: Wine (does not include White Zinfandel)
Personality: Conservative and classy; sophisticated yet giggles.
Your Approach: Tell her you love to travel and spend quiet evenings with friends.
Drink: White Zinfandel
Personality: Easy; thinks she is classy and sophisticated, actually, she has NO clue.
Your Approach: Make her feel smarter than she is...this should be an easy target.
Drink: Shots
Personality: Likes to hang with frat-boy pals and looking to get totally drunk... and naked.
Your Approach: Easiest hit in the joint. You have been blessed. Nothing to do but wait, however, be careful not to make her mad!
Drink: Tequila
No explanations required - everyone just KNOWS what happens there.
PART B: MEN - DRINKS & WHO THE MEN ARE!
THEN, there is the MALE addendum --
The deal with guys is, as always, very simple and clear cut:
Domestic Beer: He's poor and wants to get laid.
Imported Beer: He likes good beer and wants to get laid.
Wine: He is hoping that the wine will give him a sophisticated image to help him get laid.
Whiskey: He doesn't give a damn about anything but getting laid.
Tequila: He is thinking he has a chance with the toothless waitress.
White Zinfandel: He's gay!!!
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
