UN Backs Appalling Blasphemy Proposal

I nearly put my fist through my monitor when I read this AP release:

The resolution urges states to provide "protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general."

"Defamation of religions is the cause that leads to incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence toward their followers," Pakistan's ambassador Zamir Akram said.

"It is important to deal with the cause, rather than with the effects alone," he said.
Muslim nations have argued that religions, in particular Islam, must be shielded from criticism in the media and other areas of public life. They cited cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as an example of unacceptable free speech.

I wonder what they are going to designate a crime? Is it defamation, if I don't believe Mohammed was delivered the word of Allah, from the Angel Gabriel, and dictated the Koran according to these words? Sorry, it didn't happen. The guy made it up. Just like Jesus, probably was a real person, but he wasn't the Son of God. Moses' parting of the Red Sea was probably a result of prehistoric Global Warming. I don't think Noah made it to the South Pole to round up two penguins. Is that "defamation?"

Why should I respect what I don't believe in and think causes huge problems? Easy for me to say as well. But what about people in Islamic countries that aren't believers? This legitimizes their oppression.

Another reason why the UN should be closed down. Some people in countries a world away want me to respect their invisible sky ghosts.

GOP Civil War Part II

subtitle to post: Feeling Better About Being Canadian

Check out this absurd suck up to Rush in the Washington Times by Andrew Breitbart.

Segments:

Spokespeople for CPAC said it was the best-received speech in the conference's 36 years. And that included Ronald Reagan, who, by the way, was no rhetorical slouch.

(...)

Anonymous liberal commentators, the rabid pests of the new media, sought out the most popular conservative blogs to flood the zone with familiar Rush Limbaugh slanders. Their goal: To demoralize the right with layer upon layer of media domination. Only talk radio with its emphasis on Socratic debate over raw emotionalism and with Mr. Limbaugh in the driver's seat has escaped the left's clutches of pure media dominance.

For years, the radio kin of these underhanded online annoyances - coined by Rush as "seminar callers" - have read their Democratic National Committee-produced scripts to muddy the political waters. Talk-show call screeners will be on double duty this week trying to keep off the air anyone who might try to tear down the post-speech unity and elation.

This is serious wacko-ness. Notice the two parts I bolded. They're saying they are the rationalists over raw emotionalism. Next paragraph they say they have to cut off anybody who ruins post speech "unity and elation". Is elation not a raw emotion?

Andrew Breitbart is a big player on the right, especially on the internet. Either he's too dumb, or he expects his audience to be too dumb. Either way, it's not a winning formula.

Why do I care anyway? I'm Canadian. For so many years, the US has lead the way for conservatism. Canada seemed lost. But observing the US over the last half decade, they have dropped the ball on conservatism. They opened up the doors to the kooks and now they run the place. They are a joke. Fiscal prudence and libertarianism are gone. It's now some sort of religious revival type movement where the peasants are dictated at how to think. Breitbart above is saying callers who phone into talk radio who disagree need to be aggressively screened. They don't want to debate. They don't want beliefs challenged. They are sheep.

I don't look up to my big neighbour to the south as much as I used to.