Archive for March, 2009
In Italian-Canadian writer Mary Melfi’s novel Infertility Rites, the Catholic protagonist is told by her WASP husband that the Pope “cannot be taken seriously as a religious leader.” The husband goes on to say that the Pope should be tried as a terrorist. Because of the Vatican’s opposition to condoms, millions of people in the Third World will die of AIDS.
Given that Infertility Rites was written in 1991, the Pope to which Melfi’s book is referring is obviously John Paul II. Now the present Pope, Benedict XVI, appears to be following in his predecessor’s footsteps and adding his voice to the chorus of “condomnation.” Benedict stated in his recent visit to Africa that condoms cannot resolve the AIDS crisis on that continent. In fact they could make it worse, in his view.
Benedict’s words sparked a firestorm of controversy. They brought back a piece some years ago in the National Post by Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise, herself a lapsed Catholic. She loudly decried the Catholic Bishops of Botswana’s criticism of a plan by that country’s government to distribute condoms to stem the spread of HIV there. They could have merely remained silent even if they disapproved; instead they chose to open their mouths. She further pointed out that while Thailand had managed to head off a major AIDS crisis through a public health campaign on safe sex, the incidence of HIV infection had increased exponentially in Botswana and other African countries where no such campaign had taken place.
The Catholic Church’s prohibition on condoms sometimes borders on the ludicrous. According to German theologian Uta Ranke-Heinemann, the Church would not even sanction the use of the device by the post-menopausal wife of an HIV-infected haemophiliac, even though in this instance the condom was not meant to prevent conception (the chance of which would be practically zero in a woman after the so-called “change of life,” Sara in the Bible notwithstanding) or encourage promiscuity (since the woman would only be having sex with her husband).
But is it fair to lay the burgeoning of the AIDS epidemic entirely at the feet of the Vatican? Not all individual Catholics share the Pope’s views. Even some members of the Church hierarchy feel that while abstinence and fidelity to one partner are the best defences against contracting the disease, people who can’t or won’t abide by these principles should use condoms to protect themselves against HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Thailand is a largely Buddhist country with few Christians of any kind. However, similar success in averting an AIDS explosion occurred in Brazil, where most of the population is Catholic. And Catholics are far from a majority in Botswana and the other southern African nations cited by Laframboise. Though of course one can argue that Brazil’s battle against AIDS succeeded in spite rather than because of its Catholicism, it’s unclear whether the Church’s pronouncements have made much difference in the progression of AIDS in any individual country. The same might be said about the Church’s stance on contraception as a whole. In Europe two of the nations with the highest birth rates – France and Ireland – are for the most part Catholic, but so are some of those with the lowest: Italy, Spain and Portugal. Furthermore, it’s doubtful that the French are producing more babies than average out of a desire to keep themselves in line with Vatican teaching (the situation might be somewhat different in Ireland, where until recently the Catholic Church influenced not only citizens’ lives but government policy as well).
Let me be clear that I don’t agree with Pope Benedict’s stance on condoms or birth control in general. I’m heartened that a large of proportion of Catholics, including some priests and higher-ups, don’t either. And I concur with Donna Laframboise that the Bishops of Botswana should have kept their mouths shut. There may be isolated cases where an individual became infected with HIV by declining to use, or make his or her partner use, a condom as a result of the Church’s opposition to the device. But on a large scale the Catholic Church and the incidence of AIDS probably don’t have much to do with one another.
Sphere: Related ContentTitle: The Obama Deception
Release: 2009
Genre: Documentary
Run Time: 112 Minutes
Publisher: Alex Jones Productions
Rating: 82%
URL: http://www.obamadeception.net/
The Obama Deception is the latest documentary film from talk-show host anti-Globalist activist Alex Jones. The film opens with dramatic election footage backed by excerpts from various Obama speeches but wastes no time tearing into Obama’s populist image with an opening monologue by rapper and activist KRS-One (aka Kris Parker) that compares the role of president to being shift manager at a Burger King. Parker ends his diatribe by observing that the angry customers (i.e. voters) can complain all day to the manager but never get to see the owners of the restaurant.
Parker’s analogy summarizes the film’s premise: Barack Obama, like all U.S. presidents since JFK, is little more than an attractive empty suit who was promoted by the political “elites” to quell public anger over the direction of the Bush administration. The president’s role is largely ceremonial to pacify the masses while the real power is held by international bankers and non-elected bodies like the Federal Reserve and the mysterious Bildeberg Group. These non-elected bodies aim to consolidate their world power by precipitating a crisis (e.g. the recent failure of the banking system tied to sub-prime mortgages) that will coax the people into submitting more of their civil liberties to centralized powers in exchange for (perceived) security.
Jones seeks to prove this thesis by demonstrating a long history of economic imperialism, the way unelected bodies have affected the policies of past U.S. presidents (the JFK conspiracy is discussed, as he was allegedly the last president who truly tried to change the system; his comeuppance is illustrated via the infamous Zapruder assassination film) and most importantly compare the one-time senator Obama’s platform to what has actually been done since he took the white house. Despite President Obama’s term being barely 3 months, Jones provides a rather impressive list of promises already broken by the 44th president of the United States:
- Instead of repealing the patriot act as pledged, Barrack Obama voted to reinstate it
- Obama watered down his original pledge to bring all troops home from Iraq in 6 months. Now a only portion of troops will allegedly be brought home in 23 months
- While signing off the closing of Guantanamo bay, Obama’s mandate still allows for rendition; the administration threatened to cut intelligence ties to the United Kingdom over alleged evidence of American misdeeds
- Despite being elected on a platform of neutralizing lobbyists, Obama’s cabinet contains some of the most powerful lobbyists in the country. Most notably, treasury secretary Timothy Geithner was a top lobbyist for Goldman Sachs – to date, the leading beneficiary of the so-called stimulus packages ($12.9 billion)
This documentary excels at providing externally verifiable facts and sometimes shocking footage. For instance, most people probably didn’t know that Barrack Obama -model liberal- has ties to staunch Republicans. The film reveals one of Obama’s early endorsers to be none other than Henry Kissinger – the former Secretary of State is shown in a CNBC clip declaring Obama to be the perfect candidate to set a new world order.
Seasoned skeptics will be relieved to hear that The Obama Deception provides a concise description of what they believe to be President Obama’s agenda for the coming years:
- Bringing the US financial system under the control of the Bank of the World
- Conscription for persons aged 18-24 into a domestic paramilitary force under direct command of the president
- Disarmament of Americans through stricter gun control
- Strong restrictions on free speech through promotion of the Fairness Doctrine and various hate speech laws
- Military control of African resources through Africom (to secure resources and push away China from the continent)
- Further integration with Mexico and Canada in preparation for the North American Union
- Federal control of family farms through animal ID legislation
Perhaps most shockingly, the film alleges that Obama will in due time fall on his sword and take responsibility for the social upheaval resulting from this agenda. This virtual abdication will pave the way for the next Republican “saviour” who will court the American people as a renegade against socialism, all while perpetuating the agenda dictated by the “elites”.
It’s at this point that The Obama Deception starts to resemble the standard conspiracy theory flick, recently popularized by Zeitgeist and Loose Change (Jones was executive producer for the latter). This perception is only bolstered by the film-maker’s own footage of supported activists picketing and harassing cars entering various political functions they allege to be anti-democratic, playing cat and mouse with event security. The factual portions of the film are not immune to scrutiny either. The Obama Deception backs its core thesis by repeatedly sequencing verifiable information, somewhat alarming (if abbreviated) video clips that could be taken out of context and allusions to sinister activity that seem logical based on the presented information. It’s the classic Yes-Yes strategy of persuasion used by the aforementioned films – a technique that can reach the same level of deception Jones alleges of the president. Alex Jones is no stranger to controversy himself, having spearheaded a movement to rebuild the infamous Branch Davidian compound in Waco Texas that was destroyed by the ATF during its pursuit of cult leader David Koresh. Jones has also produced several conspiratorial films such as Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement and 911: The Road to Tyranny (containing some of the more infamous 911 conspiracy theories). In fact, it could be said that The Obama Deception is merely clever marketing in that it attacks Obama in a seemingly partisan way to bait audiences into hearing Jones’ traditional messages regarding totalitarian world government.
Hence, the Obama Deception is not the smear job some political partisans may have hoped for; instead, it is a discomforting launch point for discussion about the impotence of American democracy. If viewers come away from this film with one question, it is hopefully be why such readily available facts and inconsistencies must be highlighted in fringe films and not the so-called free press (from the Huffington Post to FOX News) that shapes the vast majority of public opinion and has been supposedly liberated by the internet.
A large grain of salt is required, as always, but some of this information simply can’t be dismissed out of hand (plus, we skeptics were given a prediction score-card on which to grade the film). Watch and decide for yourself.
Going Dutch
On the language curricula of most high schools and universities in North America , Dutch rarely if ever appears. It was never taught, as far as I know, at any secondary school in my hometown of Windsor , Ontario . The language is furthermore not considered an international medium of communication as English, French and Spanish or, to a lesser extent, German and Portuguese are. Still, Dutch has an interesting history and has made an impact on other languages and other places besides its homeland in Northern Europe.
Dutch is, like English, a Germanic language, along with German itself, the Scandinavian languages and the now-extinct Gothic. Though most people think of Dutch as the language of the Netherlands , the reality is not so simple. Dutch is also spoken in the region of Flanders in Belgium , where it is known as Flemish. Some controversy exists as to whether Flemish is a dialect of Dutch or a language in its own right. Whether language or dialect, however, Flemish obviously differs from the French with which it has shared what is now Belgium . Legend has it that in 14th century the Flemings in the city of Bruges rose up against their French masters. It was necessary for the former to distinguish who was who between the two groups when carrying out their rebellion. Therefore they made everyone they encountered repeat the Flemish phrase “schild en vriend” (shield and friend). Since the sound “ch” (similar to the “ch” in the Scottish word “loch”) was impossible for native French speakers to pronounce properly, the rebels were able to detect their overlords and promptly slaughter them. In his autobiography Stranger in their midst, Belgian anthropologist Pierre van den Berghe, the son of a French mother and Flemish father, humorously describes his psychological unease in hearing this story told as a child in school.
In turn, not everyone in the Netherlands claims Dutch as a mother tongue. In the province of Friesland in the country’s northwest, the population speaks a separate language called Frisian. Frisian holds the title of being the modern language most closely related to English, though it must be said that Dutch itself is more like English than, say, German is. Frisian is used as well on the coasts of Germany and Denmark . An example of the connections between the above-mentioned languages: “cow” is “ko” in Frisian, “koe” in Dutch, and “kuh” in German.
Dutch spread outside its homeland with the rise of the Netherlands ’ colonial empire in the seventeenth century. Over the following 300 years the nation’s territory would encompass parts of what are now New York State, the northern part of Brazil, Surinam (formerly Dutch Guyana), the Caribbean islands of Curacao and Aruba (still under Dutch control), South Africa, Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Indonesia. However, the colonizers’ success in promoting their language was variable. Dutch never took hold as a mother tongue in Asia other than among small groups of mixed-race inhabitants like the Burghers in Sri Lanka and Indos in Indonesia. This was not due to any weakness of the language itself but rather to the fact that Europeans did not immigrate to Asia in large numbers and were thus unable to influence the general population of the lands they ruled; a parallel example is Spain ’s former colony of the Philippines , where Spanish was never adopted as a native language.
The Dutch had more luck in South Africa . There the Dutch settlers (the Boers, literally “farmers”) and their descendants, including a group of racially mixed individuals known as the Coloureds, came to speak a derivative of Dutch called Afrikaans. In contrast to Flemish’s questionable status, Afrikaans is generally considered to be a separate language from Dutch. Afrikaans is currently one of South Africa ’s official languages, together with English after Britain ’s takeover of the country in 1902. Dutch is also spoken by over half the residents of Surinam . On the other hand, in Curacao and Aruba it did not succeed in replacing the Portuguese-African Creole Papiamento as a mother tongue, even though Dutch enjoys official status on both islands. (One little note: Belgium had colonies too, but the administrative language in its possessions was French, not Flemish.)
Despite its somewhat limited diffusion, Dutch has managed to add a number of words to the Anglo-Saxon vocabulary. As the Netherlands has always been a seafaring nation, not surprisingly some of these borrowings have had to do with water, such as “buoy.” Other terms to make their way into English include “boss,” “trek” and “smuggle.” One of the most interesting contributions is “boor,” which originated from “boer.” Although, as I mentioned above, “boer” means “farmer” in Dutch, today a “boor” in English is an unpleasant and uncouth man regardless of his profession (farmers seem to have gotten a bad press; the word “churl,” for instance, comes from the Old English “ceorl” for a peasant). Finally, Dutch has etched its mark in New York City , formerly New Amsterdam . “Brooklyn” comes from a Dutch phrase meaning “break land,” while Harlem is named after the city of Haarlem in the Netherlands.
One might ask why despite the Netherlands ’ role as a colonial power around the globe and, within Europe , its prominence in fields like the arts and sciences Dutch never became an international language. Part of this was bad luck. Many of the places the Netherlands ruled were basically “unWesternizable,” such as Asia, or had been previously colonized by another European country, like the Portuguese in Brazil . In addition, the Dutch are good linguists (most Dutch people I know speak English, French, and German in addition to their mother tongue), so they have tended to learn other people’s languages rather than making others learn theirs. Still, given that the Netherlands has one of the highest birth rates in Europe , it doesn’t look like Dutch is going to disappear anytime soon. So Dutch may yet constitute one of the Western world’s most widely spoken languages.
Sphere: Related Content

Recent Comments