What can I really say?

About the Tsunami.

Probably the single-most tragic natural disaster in modern human history. (my knowledge of "modern human history" isn't very extensive, so I could be wrong.)

I really don't know how to expand. Words lose me.

The idea of people dying in the six figures, and millions more being left displaced would make even the most heartless person feel SOMETHING. In my eyes at least, the deaths aren't as tragic as the lives that many of the survivors will now have to live... filled with sadness (and helplessness in the case of orphans and the elderly) over the loss of loved ones, stricken with diseases, left to live a life of hunger, thirst and general psychological trauma.

This is a bit off-topic but someone said something to me after the Tsunami... something like: "So yeah... this is a way bigger tragedy than 9/11." In terms of the loss of human life, it certainly is more tragic, but I really don't like comments like that one. How could you possibly compare those two tragedies? One was murder, the other one was something out of human control. You can't FIGHT nature (unless you're Mr. Burns), you COULD fight murderers though and do what you can in your control to prevent further murders. So in that sense, in most people's understanding of justice, they consider cold-blooded murder to be more tragic than deaths due to natural disasters, which is legitimate, isn't it?

Finding a balance...

Mike Brock just wrote a really good post about Canada's false or at least overstated sense of moral superiority in relation to the rest of the world. He makes the point that in terms of government aid (and even in personal aid) America is far ahead of Canada in terms of humanitarian efforts. Many people actually don't realize that with the supposed rise of the 'religious right' in America, more effort has been put than ever before on battling AIDS, famine, disease, etc. I think it'd be really interesting once some liberals learn that Christianity (and most other religions) can actually motivate and drive people to do good and noble things. Mike also takes note of Canada's deteriorating peacekeeping capacity due to the neglect of Canada's armed forces... and also most Canadians' willfull ignorance when it comes to that issue.

I think his post is exactly right--but only in relation to Canada's large numbers of delusional, misinformed far-left liberals. A lot of liberals would be pro-American if they received that directive from the party leadership. (I think he makes that point actually.)

I'm going to go off on a tangent now, but I used to be a self-loathing Canadian not so long ago, until I realized that Canada is (relative to the rest of the world) a pretty damn good country. Mike doesn't lose site of this himself, as he's a proud Canadian, but a number of other conservative bloggers do. I know that these might be federal liberal talking points, but Canada has a surplus, reasonably good economic growth and lots of other impressive economic indicators. I've made the point before that in terms of racial and ethnic harmony, Canada is also far ahead in comparison to every nation besides a small handful (and even in comparison to them, Canada still leads the pact --which is personally important to at least myself).

Some (Canadian) conservative bloggers blatantly dislike Canada, and some of their concerns are genuinely well-founded, while others are generally baseless. The genuinely good complaints are basically about Canada's rigid, ideological and impractical healthcare system as well as the tax burden. Healthcare will probably have to be reformed by necessity within the next decade or so anyway, so I'm not too worried about that and once we eventually (and this WILL happen) have a conservative government, taxes will also go down. Its been proven much easier in recent years to lower taxes than it is to raise them.

I guarantee if Canada had joined the 'coalition of the willing' in Iraq back in March 2003, patriotism amongst Canadian conservatives would be sky-high, even with a Liberal PM. Most people forget that we actually almost did join the war. If Paul Martin was Prime Minister a few months earlier, or if something else worked to ensure a legacy for Jean Chretien, I'm confident that we would have. (Paul Martin's first defense minister David Pratt openly supported the war. The going-to-war assumption also assumes the split of the PC/CA - therefore allowing Paul Martin or Jean Chretien to make 'unpopular' decisions due to no fear of electoral accountability.) This also raises the point that if conservatives were to ever be happy and proud about Canada, it would probably be because of how Canada is viewed by America (and also how America-like it is)--which is disturbingly similar to the current liberal view of how Canada must be 'different' from America, and looked at as a nuisance instead of an ally. Both of these views are similar, only because they both require the USA to justify and define Canadian identity, which is kind of lame, isn't it?

On the other hand, if a few hundred votes switched hands in Florida during the fall of 2000, America would not have gone to war anyway. And judging from Al Gore's personality over the past 4 years, I see him now as even more liberal and more insane than Paul Martin, and maybe even Jean Chretien. Another example would be if 60,000 votes switched hands last month in Ohio, America would have a spineless, confused, waffling senator as its President. Not much better than Paul Martin, right?

Even George W. himself, although he seems like a genuinely sincere, decent, good man--he's not as 'pure' of a conservative as most people think. His father and grandfather were pretty liberal, and even W. himself is to the left of his party on a number of issues (Medicare reform, education, immigration, civil unions for gay couples, etc.). I'd dare to say that Stephen Harper is probably more conservative than George W. Bush. (at least in my definition of conservatism, but that definition doesn't include social issues because I consider those issues (abortion, death penalty) dead for the time being.)

Stephen Harper was pretty close to being Prime Minister last June, and I'm about 60% sure that he will be within the next year. If Canada is capable of nearly electing Harper, and if America is capable of nearly electing Kerry/Gore, I don't understand how America and Canada can be seen as so completely different.

I've also made the point before that Canadian conservatives who loathe Canada only re-enforce conservatism's secondary role in Canadian society because of how it perpetuates the notion that liberals are more 'naturally' Canadian, just like how Republicans are more 'naturally' American, and therefore more capable of maintaining power.

Happy Holidays vs. Merry Christmas

Every year, there seems to be a gigantic debate over using the term "Merry Christmas" in the public square. I actually don't think the debate is as "real" as some people make it seem, and I think that its largely manufactured by conservatives to score political points, but it does highlight a number of important cultural issues, nevertheless.

For starters, it highlights the anti-Christian bias of most liberal Americans and Canadians. The bias would be against all religions, but liberals still like to make themselves think that they're compassionate to us funny looking coloured people (Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus, etc.) from foreign countries, so they usually concentrate their anti-religious biases exclusively on Christians. Vasakhi, Diwali, and Ramadan will always be Vasakhi, Diwali and Ramadan, but since Christmas belongs to the "white-man" and their religion, it must be offensive, according to most secular whites.

Even though the bulk of Canada's population is "Christian" in some form, saying "Merry Christmas" is somehow worse for secular whites than saying something about Ramadan, Diwali or Vasakhi. I know for a fact that every Vasakhi, in the Sikh community, the premier and federal politicians do what they can to be noticed at the Nagar Keertan (parade). Doing the same at an exclusively Christian-based parade or event would be considered "pandering" to "extreme-right-wing" forces.

I honestly don't get the anti-Christian bias out there, and I don't think that I ever will. I remember growing up watching documentaries on TV about modern-day evangelical preachers like Billy Graham and how they brought thousands upon thousands of people into the Christian faith by talking about "love" and "devotion" and a number of other harmless things. I was always so impressed. "Why couldn't us Sikhs have such impressive revival events?" I've always grown up admiring evangelical Christians and their devotion to spreading their own faith and improving their lives through the Church, even though I have so many problems and concerns with how many of them view their faith in relation to the state.

How long will it be until a time when not only is "Merry Christmas" offensive, but "Happy Vasakhi" could be too? I don't think that we're moving into that type of society (like France - where all religions are hated equally), but it does make me supportive of "Christmas" and even a more religiously based form of Christmas because I genuinely like to see Christians practicing their faith. Devout Christians produce more babies, which helps society in its most basic form. Devout Christians are less likely to be involved in crime, etc. Devout Christians are more likely to be giving, kind and compassionate people. I got so upset at some of my Sikh friends who expressed concerns at the results of the past presidential election in America, because it highlighted their biases against devout Christians, even though they themselves were devout Sikhs. Apparently supporting liberal causes was more important to them then not being irrationally biased towards religious people.

Anyways, a belated Merry Christmas to everyone. I don't personally believe, as a practicing Sikh that Jesus Christ was a "saviour" in the same sense as Christians do, but I do believe that he was a great (and incredibly influential) man, and I see nothing wrong in celebrating that.

Most Annoying Liberals - 2004

A lot of people seem to be producing this list, so I'll provide a Canadian version of a Top 5. There's so many "obvious" choices, but I feel sorry for most of them (Carolyn Parrish, Paul Martin, Jack Layton, Dozens of Democrats down in America), so I don't consider them as annoying as the people I actually chose.

1) Joe Clark: For me at least, he'll be number one on this list for the rest of his life. For someone who I've never met, I've never been annoyed by anyone quite as much. His "devil we know" comments rank him as Number One, for this year at least. I'm sure he'll find another way of helping out the Liberals in the next election, so he should be number one on the list next year too.

2) Judy Sgro: For being so darn arrogant during the past month by accusing her critics of criticizing her because they're "against immigration". This is actually how some prominent Liberals think. They have no moral or logical reason to be in politics, so they convince themselves that the opposition is "against immigration" and all sorts of other scary things.

3) The "Pro-Choice" crowd from the June election: Went so overboard that they seemed less and less "for choice" from what I saw, and more and more "for abortion". I don't usually say something that harsh, but that was basically an invented issue back in June, and the logic and arguments they used to attack Harper were so disingenuous and pathetic. His only "acceptable" response, according to much of the media was to say that he favoured abortion entirely, and that he would FORBID his MPs from being pro-life. Why else would they react in horror when some Conservative MPs were found addressing pro-life rallies? He said everything just short of what was expected (to get elected), and he was villainized for it.

4) Anne Mclellan: I saw her on CBC a couple days ago speaking about terrorism. She talked about how 9/11 had a different impact in Canada and America, and how since a few years had passed since 9/11, Canadians should probably re-evaluate the "severity" of their security and terrorism laws. Ahhhh... just the way she was saying it. As if there was no chance of Canada becoming a target, and as if there was no obligation to assist the Americans by being vigilant and tough on security issues. She seems to have no understanding about her portfolio whatsoever.

5) Scott Brison: Should be put in the Joe Clark camp I suppose, except he doesn't seem as stupid, nor does he seem as socialist. He's annoying only because he was so disingenuous about his reasons for joining the Liberals. Naturally, he couldn't say he joined for "power", but he didn't have to use the fact that he was gay as a reason to leave the Conservatives, especially considering that he knew that it wasn't an issue with a Conservative caucus.

Quote of the Day

One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never! - Winston Churchill

Benti (Request)

A few hours ago, Baba Takhur Singh Jee, the head of the Damdami Taksal, one of the most respected Singhs in the entire panth, passed away.

I don't have much to say about this topic... well, actually I do... but its probably better left unsaid.

I know there are a few Taksali friends of mine who read this site, so this is just a request: Move on. I hope they know what I'm talking about. Sri Guru Granth Sahib is the only saviour and hope of the Sikh panth... no human being can fill that void. That's something we can all agree on, right?

That's Not Cool...

I was just "surfing" the web a few days ago, when I came across something disheartening.

I've known for a long time now that the US army does not allow turbaned Sikhs to join. The Canadian "army" does, the British do, the Australians do, but the Americans do not.

I've actually known and heard of at least half a dozen people who were turned down when they volunteered to join... because they violated the beard and headwar policy. And the worst cases I heard involved turbaned Sikhs being forcefully removed from the army when the ban was first invoked...

The reason given isn't that bad or anything - 'unit cohesion' is disrupted the army claims. I think that the reason is lame, but I don't think its intentionally racist or implemented for the purpose of being bigoted. I always think like that though, so maybe I'm just always naive.

Anyways! back to what I came across when I was searching for an article a few days ago. Apparently, Dwight D. Eisenhower specifically ALLOWED for the use of Turbans and beards in the military during the 1950s by executive order because he wanted to honour what he considered to be the bravery and courage he witnessed amongst Sikh soldiers during World War Two (when he was the head Allied general). This seems like a really nice gesture, particularly because there was no pressing need to recruit Turbaned Sikhs during the 1950s. There were probably only a few hundred in the entire United States. Some Sikhs from Yuba City in California requested to fight in Korea... and Eisenhower felt obliged to honour their request.

And then... Ronald Reagan rescinded that executive order! I know that by putting this information in the hands of my left-wing nutjob Sikh friends, they'll use it to further claim that Republicans are eeeeeeeeeevil racists, but that's okay, because no one takes them (my friends) seriously anyway. I can say with a high degree of certainty that Reagan did not do so in mean-spirit and only acted on the advice of his generals or the civilian bosses at the Pentagon... but I'm sure the Sikh Coalition or one of those Sikh organizations could lobby the White House to change that policy, right? It'd make practical sense too. More troops are needed at the moment, so they might allow for it due to neccesity... I'd be surprised if anything happened though...

Quote of the Day

In government, you either have a system where you say 'Would you like to learn how to be rich, would you like to learn how to be successful?' Or you have a system where you say, 'Well, you really ought to feel envy and resentment, so let's see if we can mug them. - Newt Gingrich

"damn liberals... oh wait"

I was taking a closer look at the poster for the UBC Sikh Student Association's Annual Conference on Leadership, when I saw underneath some other writing, a quote by Rosalynn Carter, the wife of one of the most incompetent US Presidents in history...

The quote was something like "A leader takes people where they want to go... a greater leader takes people where they don't want to go, but ought to be" or something like that.

My first reaction was simply to think, "damn elitist liberals... always imposing their crazy views and "values" on the people"...

And then... I thought, maybe my reaction was unwarranted. Yes, of course, most liberals are elitist and hope to impose their far-left ideology on the masses, but I'm sure that quote can be applied to conservatives as well, right?

One of the most repeated criticisms of Trudeau, is that he was such a left-winger, and because of his unchecked power, he forced Canadians to accept a lot of things that they weren't otherwise ready to accept. Legalizing abortion, "official bilingualism", statutory supremacy to the supreme court through the charter, etc. So in that sense, the notion of a liberal ideologue imposing his values on an unexpecting nation holds true for Trudeau... and it holds true for lots of other liberals too...

However, I think it holds true for a whole bunch of conservative politicians too, right? America was never as conservative as Reagan himself. He helped conservatize much of America, especially the south. He (along with many other US presidents--Truman especially) forced his nation to 'fight' communism. So does that make him a value-imposing elitist as well? I don't think so. George W. Bush is 'forcing' his nation, through his decision to go to Iraq to 'democratize' the Middle East. He's doing exactly what Rosalynn Carter described as leadership... taking his nation where they would otherwise be too reserved or too cautious or too scared to go.

Another Good Post on the Topic

By Jagjit Singh, again.

And again, I don't agree with everything he's said...almost everything though.

This is probably the biggest domestic news issue in England at the moment, and its even getting some play in some North American cities.

Its largely becoming symbolic for the 'fight' for freedom of speech in England, which is genuinely under attack by ridiculous censorship laws. However, I don't think this story is representative of that debate at all. Mostly because the vast, vast majority of demonstrators are peaceful, and they're not calling for the state to forcefully censor the authors of the play... they're simply 'peacefully protesting' to ask for some relatively minor adjustments.

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa! Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!!

Pyare jio, although a post mortem may be pre-mature with the possiblilty of the play going to another venue. Still we need to evaluate so far, and improve ourselves, learning lessons, so that we do not make the same mistakes again.

LEARNING LESSONS - in my opinion:-

1. Apart from a few notable exceptions, Mohan Singh, Jasdev Singh, most of our media representation has been poor, neither concise, nor capable of winning the argument. Our spokespersons should learn from modern day politicians and leaders. The way you talk to media, is you have 2 or 3 vital argument winning points, and push them. Do not degress, waffle, or speculate. We also need more youth contributing on radio discussions, emailing news media and working on responding in a Gurmat manner.

2. The strategy has been good from The Birmingham sikhs. This is not a question of censorship, but a question of context in terms of the setting of the play,and its bringing sikhism into it. Change the setting and we have no problem. This is the message which need to be drilled more into the media. Plus that fact we support freedom of speech, our Guru were shaheed for it, but it needs to sensible and factual, and not abused with the sole intention to benefit from the publicity of controversy. This is what needs to be highlighted.

3. Youth need to stop relying on elders with hidden agendas, and become far more prominent in seva. Clearly much of this could have prevented if our so-called leaders were not more worried about their own agendas during pre-screening and far more vocal then. Birmingham singhs really need to look at this, and remove those who have performed particularly badly in representing us.

4. Violence - this is not something we should be proud of. We should see how everyone has jumped on that, and it has encouraged thier position on us censoring them. Yes, it has made them take us seriously, but sikhs need to be wary of being seen as thugs. When questioned about this, our leaders need to condemn it. Not say they have no control over youth, this is poor. Instead they should highlight the countryside alliance protests, and show hot-headedness is in every community. Also mention, there is probably more disturbances on a saturday night in town centres, and this is being blown out of propotion. It is the Brom Rep, who cannot guarantee the safety of children, no us sikhs.

5. THE WRITER - a olive branch should be presented to the writer. The leaders of the protests should send out a statement, that if the writer will apologise for the setting on the play in a Gurdwara, and change this. Then we as Sikhs will welcome this and draw a line under this matter. But a clear apology for the setting of the play is essential! Although some may disagree with this, I feel this is essential to show we as Sikhs are trying to resolve it in a sensible way, and we are not "fatwa-like muslim fanatics". If you watch todays Channel 4 coverage it was hinted it was only middle-aged fundamental men who are protesting, hinting they have something to hide. I think we should put the pressure on the writer rather than letting her be a "Martyr to Freedom of Speech". It will also counter the whole threats things, as we are willing to have structured dialogue with her.

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa! Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!!

Regrettable...

I was about to write a post about the huge uproar in England about the play that (rightfully) offended thousands of Sikhs over the weekened.

However, Jagjit Singh from England wrote a post on SikhSangat.com which addressed everything I hoped to say... except that I might've phrased and articulated things slightly different than him:

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa! Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!!

Pyare jio, I am sorry to dampen anyone emotions of any victory, because there is none. Whether the play is cancelled, or whether it is staged at another venue, we still have alot of seva (service) to do.

We need to look at BBC news, and it shows a sikh leader who speech had good content, but was not articulate. The opposing (muslim- I think) woman who spoke for freedom of speech was articulate. Plus the BBC showing the full press statements of the Rep are giving them good communication, but we have very little. As sikhs we are still not getting our message across.

Today, and the next few days, there is intense media interest in sikhs and this play. We can use this opportunity to do alot of good parchaar, or as is happening now, we can lose spectacularly by being shown as fanatics. We as sikhs need to be far more prominent and mature with our voices on TV, radio debates and messageboards. The next 3 days are vital, after that it will fizzle out, unless another theatre takes on the play. If this is the case, we need to play a media campaign aswell as disciplined protests.

The completely irresponsible writings of a poor writer has led to a lot of emotions. As sikhs we have always felt we are very tolerant. From today, and for the next few days the media campaign is essential to show this, and counter the blatant cryings of censorship. The Birmingham sikh spokespersons have been very sensible in their statement stating that we are not happy with the play being cancelled. We never asked for that. We just asked for any links or connatations towards the sikh religion and its gurdwaras to be removed and set in a community centre. This clearly shows we are not censoring anyone, but being accomodating. However the actions of the Rep and possibly another Theatre are showing they are being completely "fanatical" in their willing to show this play only in their way, no matter how false its protrayal and content. This is completely irresponsible. Freedom is speech is a right that sikhs have always supported, and even the 9th Guru gave his life for. However the freedom of speech should be factual in nature. However clearly in this case it is sensationalist, and intentionally set of creating publicity by causing as much controversy as possible.

PLEASE REMEMBER - no one has won and everyone has lost. Wounds have been created for no reason at all, from an immature writer. Lets now show a Gurmat response in terms of media representaion from sikhs on TV, radio debates and especially messageboards on new channels.

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa! Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!!

Ross St. Elections Today

Ross St. Gurdvara, the oldest and biggest (in terms of membership) Gurdvara (temple) in North America holds their committee elections today.

This was a B I G E V E N T back when I was growing up. Losing the elections (legitimately or not is another question) was a crushing blow to thousands of people, every 2 years.

Can things be different tonight? I doubt it... but we'll see.

Back in 1997, there was a big "split" created in the community, over something really petty, and relatively insignificant. (Until it was considered an issue in Amritsar). The small issue acted as a spark that split the community into 2 factions (There's actually many more but those are within the larger split). The people who run the Gurdvara/Temple today are largely secular. They're admittedly not very religious. A tiny (less than 1% I'd guess) percentage of them are actually baptized. The head of their other Major temple (Guru Nanak Sikh Temple in Surrey) is a drunk driver and just an all together sorry excuse for "President" of the Gurdvara.

It would be so nice to be able to go to Ross St. again... I went there every Sunday, my entire life, up until I was 10 or 11. And it would be so sweet if "our" side wins. The "fundamentalist" side (although they're not very fundamentalist either) isn't perfect, but they seem to genuinely "care" for SOME religious principles. There'd be massive celebration if they actually pulled it off tonight.

And it'd be a pretty cool birthday present too.

UPDATE: Yeah, they lost.

No Longer A Minor

I remember when I was 11, and I was just about to turn 12, I felt horrible! Because the young offenders act stipulated that minors under the age of 12 were free and immune from ANY prosecution. So turning 12 was a sad event.

Actually, I'm just kidding. As an 11 year old, I didn't actually contemplate anything criminal. I was a good kid. Obviously I knew that breaking the law was wrong, but I always had the option, right?

And now I'm 18! An adult basically. I remember when I was much younger, I'd never thought I'd reach this age. And now I have and it seems so unimpressive and entirely useless.

I was only a minor yesterday, and I already miss it. Expectations are starting to change.

So this is a good thing, right?

Yesterday, a man came to my house and "served" me with papers.... A defamation lawsuit.

And no, it wasn't related to anything I've said on this blog.

I was looking back at the quotes I've posted throughout my blog, and I saw the Churchill quote about making enemies, and how it shows that you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.... So I guess that makes this lawsuit a "good thing", right?

The lawsuit details events from two years ago! When I was FIFTEEN! This isn't fair, is it? You can't sue someone whose a minor, right? The "damages" are in the six figures. The suit also includes four other people.

Well anyways, the details of the lawsuit seem pretty baseless and unsubstantiated. I think we're (my older brother and his wife are lawyers) going to counter-sue, something which I would've never thought of if this frivilous lawsuit hadn't been filed to begin with.

And since this document is now a "public document", would it be legal to post it online? It details all of the alleged "defamation".

The lawsuit deals with a sexual predator who preyed on young girls within the Sikh community. I guess I should just leave it at that...

Even the simplest things could be hilarious...

I hope everyone checks this out.

Its the "George W. Bush Conspiracy Generator".

I don't know why, but even though all the conspiracies are so predictable, (because you can design them yourself based on a predetermined set of criteria, i.e. event, co-conspirators, victim and goal) its still so funny... every time... because its true. I'm 99% certain that almost every one of those possible conspiracies has been said at least once in the past four years...

If only we could get one genuine leader in there...

There's no shortage of "Sikhs" in provincial and federal politics these days, yet all of them seem so completely unimpressive.

In the provincial legislature I think there's seven "Sikhs". There were two ministers up until this past spring I think, one resigned to run in the federal election (he was later replaced by another Sikh (NDP) in the by-election), and another one had health issues and had to leave cabinet. (I think? She might've been reinstated by now.)

Maybe its just because I have an inferiority complex in regards to my own community, but I can't think of a single, impressive, genuinely capable person out of all seven.

This is sad but the most capable Sikh MLAs were probably from the days of the NDP administration. And I'm not referring to Ujjal - he was a joke.. someone who completely sacrificed his party's electoral fortunes, just for his own ego (wanting to go back to India as premier in order to receive a hero's welcome).

I'm referring to Moe (Manmohan) Sihota. Sure, he wasn't perfect, and he was even scandalous himself, oh and he was an NDPer too... but at least he seemed like he had a sound grasp of policy, and even politics. He knew how to work the media and I'm pretty sure that he acted as a voice of moderation in a cabinet that was probably filled with socialist ideologues.

Why can't we have a more right wing version of him? Its one thing to go into politics for the sake of politics, but its probably important to know what you're doing while you're there. Moe knew how how to get things done. I guess its good for the (Sikh) community to have representatives in parliament and in the provincial legislature, but its even more important to make sure that those representatives are capable and that they aren't an embarrassment to the community.

Quote of the Day

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. - Ann Coulter: September 13, 2001.

I don't think that she was actually serious.

hahaha...

Normally, I wouldn't share a 'personal' story, but today, when me and my little sister were having a conversation with our parents, I almost thought I heard my sister say something kinda funny.

For Punjabi Sikh parents, my parents are actually quite liberal in their views, they're not very strict, but today, my mom was saying something to my sister (I forget what), when my sister shouted out what I thought to be "Ok, mom, we don't live in Kansas!".

I just burst out laughing. I thought my sister made a politically oriented joke, poking fun at the backwards tendencies of "red-state America". And even though I'd normally take exception to making offensive remarks about "red-staters", I thought I'd let it go, because I couldn't even imagine that my sister even knew that there was such a place as "Kansas", and then I remembered exactly that and stopped laughing.

I'm pretty sure she said something else, like "fences" maybe.

Maybe there ARE more conservative Sikhs than I thought...

I was just reading this article on Slate.com. The article itself describes the events and little interesting details from America's "First Conservative Film Festival" which took place this past summer.

When the articles gets to discussing a documentary on Ann Coulter, I was shocked! Totally shocked.

After a protester disrupts one of her speeches, she quips, "You really develop your analytical skills here at Johns Hopkins. At Harvard, they had questions." When an olive-skinned girl asks her to sign a book later, Coulter asks, "Are you a Sikh?" No, I'm Hindu, the woman replies. "Oh, I've got a lot of Sikh friends for some reason," Coulter says. "You're my first Hindu."

Ann Coulter has a "lot of Sikh friends"! That's crazy! I would've never imagined that.

Ann Coulter is probably the most hated right wing person in the entire United States, for those of you who might not know who she is. She's also the most outrageous, but in a good way, I guess. I don't think she's actually as outrageous as she portrays herself to be, but she says some of the craziest stuff imagineable.

Quote of the Day

If you are not criticized, you may not be doing much. - Donald Rumsfeld

I didn't know that...

Today's been a really interesting day for me. I've learnt a lot. First I learnt that Khalistan was already created, and then, in actual news, while I was reading this column, I learnt that there was once a SIKH congressman in the United States House of Representatives. His name was Dilip Singh Saund.

No one's ever told me that before, and I doubt that many people even know!

He wasn't only the first "Indian-American" elected, he was the first "Asian-American" elected, period. There hasn't been an Indian American elected until this past November, when a born-again Christian - Bobby Jindal won a seat easily in Louisiana.

And the saddest thing is that, I'm doing a search for his biography online, and I haven't come up with anything substantive.

This article is the best I could find. He was elected in 1956. Amazing, huh?

Joe Wilson, a Republican congressman from South Carolina tabled a motion in August to display a portrait of Dilip Singh in the capital building.

Quote of the Day

Today we may say aloud before an awe-struck world: "We are still masters of
our fate. We are still captain of our souls." -- Winston Churchill

Just a little motivation for myself as I finish up my exams for the semester...

Oh My God, When did that happen?

This article really lifted my spirits today. Well, actually, only the first paragraph. The rest of it is good too!

Here's the first paragraph:

Her long, wavy dark-brown hair falling gently around her face, 15-year-old Aleksandra Akhmadullina sat quietly in a Fairfield High School library conference room reminiscing about her family, friends and upcoming holidays back home in Orenburg, a city of 750,000 in the southern part of Russia near the Khalistan boarder.

(The author seems to have confused Khalistan with Kazakhstan)

Well its one step at least. Name recognition!

Quote of the Day

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein

Only because she's stupid....

Lately, there's been a lot of discussion about whether Judy Sgro, the immigration minister, should resign.

The charges levelled against her are serious, but they probably aren't as scandalous as most people make them seem.

The only reason I'd like to see her removed from cabinet is because she comes across as a total idiot.

- In defending her actions, she accuses the opposition of simply being "against immigration". I really was getting naive; I thought that the Liberals were cutting down on their totally ludicrous and baseless fear mongering. Even with Rahim Jaffer, someone who fled Idi Amin's Uganda, she makes that same accusation! She has no class whatsoever. She seems so delusional and uninformed in her answers, and she's the person put in charge of coming up with Canada's "new" immigration plan? I'm sure almost ANYBODY could do better.

- She was the idiot who stalked Harper during the election campaign.

- All the accusations are coming from former, disgruntled staffers. If even her own staff had that little confidence in her, why in the world should she be part of cabinet?

I'm almost certain that she was only put in cabinet to fill a quota for females. I'm sure that somewhere in the backbenches there's a more qualified female Liberal MP.

Quote of the Day

The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people's private lives. Government governs best when it governs least - and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone's version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays. - Barry Goldwater

I thought I supported that...

I've always in theory, supported Same-Sex marriage, or at the very least, some sort of 'equality' in terms of benefits, survivor-rights, etc.

And maybe its just because I'm blindly partisan, but my view keeps shifting back and forth lately. When a Liberal MP speaks out against SSM, I generally feel sort of impressed in that liberal's "abilitity to take a stand", "speak out against the party line", etc. I really don't know why! Because I'm actually on record supporting SSM.

And even when the conservatives are standing up against SSM, I generally hope that they "win". When I step back, and think about the situation logically, I always go back to supporting the legislation, but when I'm "not thinking actively" I always fall back into a feeling of hoping that the SSM legislation fails.

Maybe its just because I'm bitter enough to hope that poor Paul Martin always fails? I guess that's basically it.

Quote of the Day

Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. - Barry Goldwater

Sort of relating to my last post.

Assimilationism vs. Multiculturalism

Ian Scott over at Ianism wrote a very powerful rant yesterday detailing the lessons and experiences in his life that made him come to realize the essential weaknesses of socialism and also the strengths, power and even honour in owning a business, contributing to society and so much more.

Not only did he come to realize the essential flaws in left wing doctrines by reading his post, you'll also better grasp the defeatism, the bitterness, the jealousy, the cynicism, and the pessimism that's so rampant in people on the left.

Well, just read his post. Its good.

Anyways, moving onto MY topic, where I'll point out my concerns with some "right-wingers".

I knew this was going to happen more after 9/11, and its beginning to happen already in the United States. I discussed this issue with the religious headwar ban issue, but I'll discuss it again.

When conservatives in America discuss how affirmative action is wrong - I agree.

When conservatives in Canada discuss how 'official multiculturalism programs' are wrong - I agree.

When conservatives in general discuss measures to improve immigration - I agree.

However... some people are starting to use the "a" word. Assimilation. And that's something I can never agree with.

That word is just as offensive or scary as official multiculturalism is insulting.

There's a distinction that a lot of people out there don't grasp. There's a difference between being supportive of government-sponsored multiculturalism where minorities are given incentives to be "cultural" - which is stupid, and being supportive of multiculturalism itself - which I think is great. Multiculturalism has existed in North America since the Quakers came to Pennsylvania in the seventeenth century and decided to allow in a whole bunch of other European ethnicities, thereby creating a pretty pluralistic society, something unheard of back then.

I haven't had a lot of time to think about this topic, so my thoughts might not be as coherent as I'd hope, but what exactly does an official policy of assimilation mean?

I grew up in a somewhat devout Sikh family, and I know Sikh families that are even more devout, and there's some people out there who have an issue with how some of them live their lives. Some people might have an issue in the choice of the neighbourhood in which they live. Some people have an issue in the choice of their clothes. I recognize that most of these issues are with Muslims, but even with them, I still don't get it.

Their thoughts and their intentions are sort of well-meaning, and they always talk about how they're labelled as being politically incorrect, well its because they are. Sometimes a politically correct position is actually the right one.

Its because of assimilationists on the "right", that I lean more towards being a libertarian, than a social conservative.

Its true that a lot of immigrants don't contribute positively to society, and that's a shame; they ruin the hard work of decent immigrants, and open up ALL immigrants to blanket criticism. Blanket criticism that starts becoming less about finding a job and more about criticizing where people choose to live, what language people choose to speak and once they find a job, some people will continue complaining about the types of jobs.

I just want to clarify that I'm not a whiner. I think most North Americans are very understanding when it comes to immigration. They understand the importance of immigration, they try to be accepting of immigrants, but with so many people there's always this underlying bias, even if its subtle.

I was reading this article in the Washington Times about "Europe's Failed Multiculturalism".

Its an interesting read.

Mr. Boyer acquired his expertise while working for the Ministry of the Interior, the government department responsible for internal security. Mr. Boyer admits much more is needed in educating Europe's Muslims from a cultural perspective.

What does that mean? I really want to know. As long as someone is gainfully employed, raises a family, what does it matter what their culture is?

Every state/province in North America has a mandatory curriculum, followed even by private schools. Every second-generation Canadian/American child raised in this continent will learn English, their immigrant parents will want them to be educated, and in that sense they will be assimilated--which is great. They'll find jobs at the same rate as any other group of people, they'll pay taxes, yet some of them will still be isolated from what most people consider "mainstream society".

Here's a quote about secularism from that Sikh professor's blog:

Secularism is a political power of the state, used to protect the freedoms of individuals. That includes their freedom from religious authority, as well as the freedom to practice whatever religious beliefs they have. The freedom to religious expression must not conflict with the rights of others, or with the idea of fundamental human rights for everyone. Where there is a conflict, the state has to restrict freedoms. By my definition of secularism, it is possible to be pro-UCC in India (and anti-polygamy, anti-triple talaaq), while also supporting the rights of Muslim women and Sikh men to chosen religious attire in France and the U.S. The state also has to protect the rights of members of religious communities to drop out, or to deviate from the community norm. So if they allow girls to wear Hijab in school again in France, I believe they should also create special community liasions to help Muslim girls who don't want to wear Hijab.

The vast majority (99%) of Sikhs actually do things that most other people do anyway--they'll go to sports games, they'll go watch movies, and stuff like that... however, I also know (a tiny minority of) devout Sikhs who will dress differently, only associate with people from their temple/Gurdvara, but how does that impact the greater society in any form? I don't get it. What's so important about cultural assimilation? I personally think its basically racist fear-mongering, and being the son of immigrants myself, I find some people's rhetoric on the issue disturbing.

And in regards to Immigration Policy, as long as someone seems willing, capable and likely to work, stay out of crime, raise a family, etc. I personally don't even understand any possible cultural requirements towards immigration.

Quote (Poem) of the Day

Every Sikh heart bleeds,

When thinking of your heinous deeds,

It is time that you die of shame,

And give up all your claim,

Be a champion of the minority,

Yet a Hindu nation is your top priority.

Do you search your conscience,

When you preach non-violence?

You are a terrorist of the worst kind,

Blind to the values of mankind.

Nastiest tyrant of the present time,

Prime Minister of war and crime,

You clamour for a Nobel Peace prize,

When your own country is cut to size,

Another breed of your kind,

Can spell disaster for mankind.

This is the cry of each Sikh soul

You can fool the world no more.

-A Sikh Woman's Emotional Outburst against Indira Gandhi after Operation Blue Star

By the way, I wrote some thoughts about why Sikh "violence" in the 1980's is nothing like Islamic terrorism in the current day - here.

Why are some people so stupid?

Check out the comments in Brock's latest post on the only valuable lessons from Jean Chretien's term in office, as well as the comments under that hilarious Jesus-land trip on Trudeaupia.

I thought people who checked out blogs were usually semi-intelligent... perfectly capable of detecting sarcasm, satire, etc.

Apparently not.

Both posts are hilarious by the way, and there's no better way to capture the ridiculousness of those issues (Canadians' carelessness when it comes to corruption and their inability to detect it in the case of Brock, and the stupidity of anti-Americans in the case of Trudeaupia).

Quote of the Day

From (probably) the most quotable guy of the twentieth century:

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. - Winston Churchill

Hmmm... as I grow older, I'll be sure to remember that.

Indian History Class...

One of my more annoying classes this year is a course on the history of modern India.

At the beginning of the year, I assumed that it would be cool to learn about "modern India"... unfortunately, I now realize that I was conned into a class that is exclusively about colonial India... under the British Raj.

This is only a bad thing because there are so many varying interpretations about so many issues, including the causes behind independence, reasons behind partition, etc. Every view can only come across as biased or inaccurate.

Anyways.. another thing I don't like about any "India class" is that every one of them glorifies Gandhi, as if he was the sole cause behind Britain realizing their moral lowground, and therefore their need to "leave India".

I think Gandhi was probably a well-intentioned guy, but I don't see how anybody can agree with his approach. His approach rested on the basic assumption that the "Indian people" were inferior to the British, and I, personally, can never accept that premise. Not only do I question his approach, but I also question the historical accuracy of his role. There were thousands upon thousands of others fighting against British rule and the British, after World War Two were retreating from their colonial possessions anyway. Gandhi was nowhere near as important as he's shown to be, his stand against the British was simply a convenient way for the British to leave India.

His inferiority complex is well-documented and even accepted in most western portrayals.

We [Indians] can only be granted the responsibility of freedom once we learn to civilize ourselves first. [like the British] - From his Autobiography, I believe.

No. Freedom is the right of everybody, even if they don't agree with your definition of what's "civilized". His renunciation of 'violence' was hypocritical because he [rightly] supported the British war efforts in Europe. And violence is *gasp* sometimes neccesary to fight against a colonial power in order to attain independence, i.e. the American Revolution. The Amritsar Massacre (hundreds killed) was far worse than the Boston Massacre (5 killed?). Violence of course, should never be the first response... it should only be used as a last resort... and sometimes, it is neccesary, particularly in self-defense (something Gandhi was against as well).

The only reason the American "occupation" of Iraq is moral is because they intend to leave eventually, and on the whole, in my opinion, they have good intentions (well far better intentions than Zarqawi (sp?) guys anyway) The British colonial effort, although sometimes noble in their intentions, was completely different because a) they intended to stay indefinitely, b) their efforts at implementing democracy were disingenuous and c) they made no secret about their desire to exploit Indian resources.

Anyways.... I've gone way off track. One of the reasons I like Christopher Hitchens, the author, is because he challenges so many deeply held beliefs and perceptions - i.e. his attacks on Mother Teresa and his transformation into a pro-war liberal hawk. I hope that someone tries to do something similar with Gandhi. I've only encountered one glowing, one-sided, pro-British portrayal of his life. And I'm not qualified or knowledgable enough to adequately portray the "other side" to Gandhi... although I have seen a few people try.

Quote of the Day

If it was good enough for us to have Sikhs fighting on our side in World War 2 while they wore turbans instead of protective helmets, then it's good enough that they can serve on our police forces wearing turbans as well. - Ian Scott's Dad explaining his support for Turbaned police officers (back when this issue was contentious).

Stephen Harper - Liberal?

There's been much debate recently over whether Stephen Harper has "sold out" to Conservatism in Canada. Lately, Alan's mood over at Occam's Carbuncle has been uncharacteristically upset about this issue, and he sent an e-mail to the CPC expressing his concerns:

I point to things like the CPC's waffling and weakness on its Iraq position, its apparent enthusiasm for our Stalinist health care system, its commitment to interprovincial welfare in the form of equalization, the wishy washy "nuanced" position on ballistic missile defence, and its disturbingly statist pronouncements on things like the banning of trans fats.

I don't really agree. Most of the advice given to Democrats over the past month applies to Canada's Conservative Party as well. The Republican Party and the Liberal Party share some very basic characteristics in common. They are the Majority Party in their respective countries and both of them have a better claim in the eyes of their citizens on what it means to be an American/Canadian. While Democrats in the states are portrayed as less authentic in their American-ness, Conservatives in Canada are made to feel the same way.

If Republicans in America have trouble implementing a "conservative agenda", people should realize that implementing a Conservative Agenda in Canada is even tougher. Joe Clark is probably the most annoying, pathetic, egotistical figure in the history of Canadian politics, but he did have a point about a few things. While only a total sell-out would buy into his belief that conservatives have to be even more left-wing than the Liberals to get elected, he might still be about 1% right. Harper recognizes this. Canadian Conservatives will always have to seem non-offensive in the same way that John Kerry was attempting to accomplish. Let's just hope that less people start buying into the "hidden-agenda" argument (even though we all hope that its true).

Stephen Harper is actually a pretty right-wing guy. Here's an article that he wrote about Conservatism last year. I think all Conservatives should be overjoyed by the fact that Harper is a genuine conservative in so many ways. Does anyone remember, in October when Michael Moore was ranting about how John Kerry is called the most Liberal Senator "because he is"? (he said this in order to rally college students) Well, Stephen Harper is called a conservative ideologue, "because he is". Harper left the Reform Party in '97, in part because he was content in being in an "NDP-like" party that always received a strong number of seats, influencing policy greatly, while never assuming power. He doesn't come across as someone whose power-obsessed, he seems genuinely concerned about principles and policy. He was principled enough to leave a party that was in power in order to help build up another one from nothing.

Anyways... I could be wrong too. Although sharing dreams is completely irrational and adds nothing to actual debate or discussion, I'll share a dream that I had from this past summer, midway through the Canadian federal election. Right when the Conservatives went up in the polls, I had the strangest dream ever. I was sitting in a room, with most of Canada's prominent politicians. The Conservatives were all seated holding "blue books" while the Liberals were seated holding "red books". Everyone was listening to a speech, when, while no one was looking, Stephen Harper snuck out of his seat to the front of the room where he quickly grabbed a "red book". I was the only person in the room to notice, so I quickly got up, jumped on a table, rallied all the Conservatives in the room together, and we moved that Harper be removed from his leadership post in light of his treachery... unfortunately, we had to replace him with someone, so I quickly looked around the room, and I quickly moved that Tony Clement become the interim-leader in his place (as he was still holding a blue book).

Quote of the Day

When this war is over, the Japanese language will be spoken only in hell - Admiral Bill Halsey on December 7, 1941 (Today is the 63rd anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbour)

Well, umm... I can't say I agree with that statement at any level, but you have to totally admire their determination back then! And I guess we have to admire the progress made since then as well; I don't think any prominent Americans replaced "Japanese" with "Arab" on September 11th, 2001.

French Cowboy E-mails Me!

Does anybody remember the article that I posted a few days after the election? It was the story of a Frenchman who allowed himself to see past all the vile anti-Americanism in Europe to realize that America is, by in large, a force for good in the world.

Well, today he e-mailed to thank me!

Dear Japnaam,
I've just discovered through Google that you wrote some very kind words regarding my column in the Dallas Morning News. I just wanted to say thank you.

All the best,

Fred Gion
Paris, France

One more reason...

...to be against the religious headwar ban in France.

Nice insight by Ian Scott over at Ianism.

Its too bad I haven't checked out Ian's site in the past... probably only because it doesn't have a cool name like "let it bleed" or "the monger".

Quote of the Day

I don't have to be careful. I have a gun. - Homer Simpson

In the spirit of my previous post. Jesusland rules!

Note: As someone who tries to be a devout Sikh himself, I genuinely do have a deep respect for evangelical Christians... and I've talked about that a few times in the past.

Thinking about going to Jesusland?

This is a truly authentic account of the horrors Canadians (and other "foreigners") will have to go through in order to enter that theocracy next door...

So now you'll know how to prepare yourself ahead of time. I'll just give you a quick summary from a line in the post that I'm linking too:

I made sure I packed my Bible and Rosary to display with my passport and customs form.

I should really start developing a story to explain how I'm a Turbaned Christian... I'm sure it'll work out though, I'm pretty sure Jesus himself had a beard and long hair, I'll just try to think up something creative to justify the Dastaar/Turban...

Quote of the Day

We know our religion orders us to show pity and be helpful to those in trouble, but we must be extremely careful when we deal with the enemy. Their one aim is to remove us from the face of the earth, and we cannot expect any sympathy from them. Under these circumstances we must first see to our security before we let the enemy into our midst, however desperate his condition may be. We cannot and must not compromise the safety of the Jatha! - From Bhai Vir Singh's Sundri

Written in 1898, Bhai Vir Singh describes the sentiments of two Singhs who are taken aback when they see Sundri kindly helping a wounded Mughal soldier. This was a translation by 'Bimal Kaur'.

Earlier, I asked someone to guess the origins of the quote, (I removed the last sentence which contained the word "Jatha") their answer was "Donald Rumsfeld" - Current US Defense Secretary.... Innerestingggg...

Today is Bhai Vir Singh's birthday.

What exactly is an elitist?

A couple of posts below I called a Sikh professor an elitist without properly substantiating the reasons behind my description. Well, I alluded to a reason, but I wasn't detailed enough.

There was nothing blatantly elitist in the post that I linked too.... however, there was a condescending sense of elitism in other posts, but that's okay, there's nothing wrong with being an elitist.

Anyways, I don't want to be the type that puts down other people from behind a computer, but I was just really upset after reading this post.

The site of a Sikh calling Operation Bluestar "neccesary" was painful to watch and I reacted by calling him an elitist in regards to another issue, when I should have simply addressed the Operation Bluestar post.

So now I will: Only an enemy of the Sikhs could agree with Operation Bluestar. Actually... that's a bit harsh... an enemy of the Sikhs or someone whose simply terribly misinformed.

Quote of the Day

To be the man, you've got to beat the man. Whoooo! - Ric Flair

This quote has resonance with me, even though I wasn't even born during Ric Flair's prime, nor have I watched wrestling in over 4 years... supposedly he's made a comeback recently...

I'm sure this would be a fine quote even if it wasn't made by a professional wrestler.

Does anyone still watch wrestling? Fortunately, after being a die-hard Bret Hart fan for most of my life, I was mature enough to quit watching wrestling when I was 13 years old... it was becoming corrupted by all the scantily clad women... and plus, the NWO was quickly disintegrating... I couldn't allow myself to see such horrible storylines playing out on a weekly basis...

I swear, when I was 12 years old... if the WCW just hired me as their head writer.... things woulda been different... (that was one of my dreams back when I was 12...)

This seems interesting...

SikhBlogs.com

I'm not sure if this a positive development or a completely useless one.

I could understand the need for creating a portal of Sikh blogs, but I don't get the purpose of creating a site that produces blogs designed specifically for Sikhs.... Odd.

Well, I'm always interested in hearing what fellow Sikhs have to say... so I suppose that creating this site could only be positive.

Quote of the Day

I don't know if I'll be able to maintain a daily quote post.... but I'll try anyway:

Cynicism is not realistic and tough. It's unrealistic and kind of cowardly because it means you don't have to try - Peggy Noonan

Update: I suppose this quote applies to some people more than others.

Finally found another Sikh blog...

...except that it totally reeks of