Saturday, September 30, 2006


Gibbys steakhouse in Old Montreal isn't one of those places where you have to dress ultra hip and make your hair look greasy.

Nor is it an ultra conservative, suits-only kind of establishment. Usually a shirt (no tie) is appropriate. Even a golf shirt is common.

Okay, that's your sweet context. Now read Michael's comment from his dinner there on Friday, September 29, 2006

[We] were disgusted all night by the view we had of some ass a few tables away wearing a tank top.

Yes a tank top at dinner.

And it was freezing last night too, so clearly the only possible explanation is he loves showing his gross body. His bimbo girlfriend was obviously impressed with his "huge" pipes (actually he had no muscles), and wants to see them all the time, under all circumstances, even at Gibby's.

I still believe it is one of the ugliest, most offensive, if not the most offensive piece of male attire ever invented. It should be banned from all public places. You want to wear that crap in your house? Go ahead. But as soon as you walk out your door, no way. Only a girlfriend could be impressed with that look, and everyone else wants to barf. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the idiot girlfriend.

Sunday, September 24, 2006

The Pope has nothing to apologize for

I haven't written in a while and I've been meaning to talk about the Muslim world's overreaction to the Pope's speech in Germany. The violence, killings and burning of stuff was caused not by the Pope's academic speech (which I doubt highly the arsonists in Nablus actually read). Indeed, the entire thrust of the Pope's speech about how to promote peaceful inter-religious dialog and why violence is not a good thing.

Rather, the violence was caused by religious leaders in the Muslim world who misrepresented what the Pope said and riled up the faithful at Friday prayers.
Nothing the pope has ever said comes even close to matching the vitriol, extremism and hatred that pour out of the mouths of radical imams and fanatical clerics every day, all across Europe and the Muslim world, almost none of which ever provokes any Western response at all. And maybe it’s time that it should: When Saudi Arabia publishes textbooks commanding good Wahhabi Muslims to “hate” Christians, Jews and non-Wahhabi Muslims, for example, why shouldn’t the Vatican, the Southern Baptists, Britain’s chief rabbi and the Council on American-Islamic Relations all condemn them — simultaneously? [More...]
And the timing of the violence is no coincidence.
Just about the entire world knows that that Pope Benedict XVI gave a speech on Tuesday condemning religious conversion by violence. The Muslim "street" did not respond until Friday, when the leaders of the Muslim religion called for their faithful to surge into the streets in an orgy of rage and violence. Not content only to burn Christian churches (neither of which follow the Catholic pope), they turned on themselves. Never in the history of Christianity has a pope been proven correct so quickly and demonstrably.
But a New York Times editorial blamed the Pope for causing the violence.
[t]he world listens carefully to the words of any pope. And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly. He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology, demonstrating that words can also heal. [More...]
But as one commentator correctly points out, the violence has nothing to do with violent mobs listening to what the Pope actually said.
[t]here is no evidence that any of the enraged Muslims "listened carefully" to the words of the pope -- this is like blaming a beaten wife for provoking the bastard who throttles her. It is the leaders of prayers in the mosques of the Muslim world who call on their faithful to riot in the streets. It is they who sow pain and incite violence, and anybody unburdened by a loathing of Western civilization knows it. Pope Benedict has nothing to apologize for. The leading clerics of the Muslim world have a great deal to apologize for. [More...]