Navanethism

“ Navanethem Pillay, the United Nation's new commissioner for human rights, wants to be the "the champion of human rights in every part of the world".
"This is the only office at the UN to be fiercely uncompromising and independent about human rights standards. The commissioner is the voice of the victim everywhere."

Ms Pillay replaces Canadian Louise Arbour in the role and earned the praise of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who said she has outstanding credentials for taking over the rapidly growing UN Human Rights Commission. From humble beginnings, the commission now has a 1,000-strong staff based in Geneva and a budget of $120m (£60m).

to throw a spotlight on the world's worst violations, including Sudan's mass killing in Darfur, Burmese brutality, Chinese persecution, and Mugabe's destruction of Zimbabwe. ”

Some how I do not believe that, ‘champion of human rights in every part of the world’, commish ‘is the voice of the victim everywhere’. It is not true. The commish is and will only be the voice of those whom she says are victims. The rest of us will have to fend for ourselves !


“ The former Bosnian Serb leader, Radovan Karadzic, is to face the UN war-crimes tribunal in The Hague on Thursday.
Under normal procedure, he would be read his rights, fingerprinted and photographed, and then undergo a medical examination.
The 63-year-old had attempted to challenge the legality of his transfer. An appeal, sent by post on Friday, had still not been received by the Serbian court on Tuesday, prompting Serbia's justice minister to issue the final extradition order.
He has been indicted for crimes against humanity. ”

Case in point. How can the UN proceed when within his own country he was appealing. The UN is NOT the high court of the world ! ! The state MUST retain its sovereignty within the world community. He has been indicted for crimes against humanity – a very very vague statement meaning anything that any one wants it to mean – what about the crimes against him ? perpetrated by his own country and the UN ? It may be that he is a criminal but the end, his condemnation and subsequent punishment, DOES NOT justify the means.

Also true, the UN has NOT ever done anything for most of the victims of abuse as in Sudan or Burma or China or Tibet or Hungry or Israel or Gaza or or or ! ! MOST of the time it is rhetoric after rhetoric after rhetoric till the crisis is over then the UN moves in and pretends to have brought the situation under control.

Lebanon. A UN person gets his self killed. WHAT EVER was he DOING there ?? Even in a fist full of dollars the hero was smart enough to know that he did not want to get between the US army and the Mexican one ! ! We had a poem in our reader when I went to school – mad dogs and English men go out in the mid day sun …….. How can the “Peace Keepers” keep a peace that does NOT exist ? ? When even only one side has guns it is NOT wise at all to walk in between. Dumb or what?

One MUST question the rights that Human rights exponents are extolling AND the identity of the ‘victims’ whom they are ‘speaking’ for. So far around the world the rights are not so but are rather the wishes, the self centered whining wants of the – mostly of the ‘voice’ (who knows or cares what the ‘victim’ really perceives as what he, she, they, it, wants) I was impressed with the later statement of Papy. The Butterfly, one thumb. I was the wrong person at the wrong place at the wrong time. I never killed anyone. I was an easy target for the pigs because I was a criminal. He admitted that if he had NOT been where he was doing what he was he could never have been set up to take the fall for the real killer. SOOOOOOOOOOOO many many times the ‘victim’ in so many cases is only one of the victims. So many times the criminal ends up being a victim too. Some times the ‘criminal’ should be considered as a victim. BUT not so often as is the case.

There ARE monsters. Who SHOULD be EXTERMINATED ! Minimum court time ! We DO need better justice – REAL justice. When a crime is committed a commiserate punishment SHOULD be meted out and that immediately. Emphasis on COMMISERATE punishment. TO many times the criminal becomes a ‘victim’ because the court case dragged on and on, and or the punishment has not fitted the crime.

To many times the world, and the UN dither away time and wring their hands and thus Create a whole raft of victims who never should have been so. Too often the world and the media and the UN do not take the time or have the intelligence to know who the real criminal is. Identify them BEFORE the action, do something about the situation BEFORE all the heartache has been caused. To often the world does not have the guts to stand up to the bad guy and tell him where to get off. Why, because they are his friend? The United States is NOT the bad guy just because they are the BIG guy. They HAVE done some reall dumb things. And some Bad ones. So has England. And they are civilized ones.

Pillay and Arbour before her should stand back and take a look at the real world. There are more than just food and shelter that are human rights. FIRST and Foremost there is the right to be good. The right to be right. The right to be righteous. Then the right to be honest. The right to be kind. The right to be just. After that the food and shelter thing. After that all the other things. Pillay, let me ask. Which is better, Apartite or what is going on in South Africa now ? ? Farley Mowet tells of the men on the DEW line who gave generously to the Eskimos when they were starving. Only to find out after it was to late that the one to whom they were entrusting the food was hording it and not passing it on. Pillay did you fix things back home before you go out into the world and try to fix it ? ? The white guys were NOT the only bad guys in SA. Everyone likes to chastise the old colonial powers. Sure there were lots of bad things done and dumb things BUT is Africa better off now that they are ‘looking after’ things themselves?

Human Rights is a Very intellectually challenged concept. Someone has to decide who is the victim and who the criminal. Pillay, Arbour are you reallllllllllllllly realllllllllly qualified to make that decision ? ? ? Where is your badge of authenticity ? ? Whom do you speak for ? The UN has a very questionable record. You speak for the ones with the money? You speak for the ones who have the IQ? You speak for democracy? The ones with the most power? Who DO you speak for? You speak for yourselves? Canada’s own human rights record is absolutely abysmal ! Absolutely ! Why? Because we have NO standard for justice. And even if there were those who are “responsible” for those rights are not qualified by justice, intelligence, or emotion, and do not think for themselves or make their own decisions. Even if there were a standard of justice those who are ‘responsible’ would not follow it ! Even if there were a standard of justice the chain of command has totally ceased to exist, those who are ‘responsible’ have no one to be responsible to, in part because they have not gotten into their place of ‘responsibility’ through what is in Canada legitimate means. (democracy means government of the people for the people by the people – unfortunately now it is mostly viewed as rule by whoever got the most votes in an election; regardless of who they are or how they got the votes) Ditto for Pillay.

“ Malaysia's pen-tailed tree-shrew waits until nightfall to binge on fermented nectar from the bertam palm.
The animal could give insights into how humans' alcohol tolerance first evolved, the scientists say.
The shrew's resistance to intoxication suggests its body must have an effective mechanism for breaking down alcohol.
This should not come as too much of a surprise: scientists believe the animals - which are distant relatives of humans - have had 55 million years of evolution to adapt to their boozy lifestyle.
Humans may even preserve a relic of the shrews' love of alcohol that has lasted through millions of years of evolution.
They added: "Therefore, we hypothesize that moderate to high alcohol intake was present early on in the evolution of these closely related lineages. "

“we hypothesize … closely related lineages”
OR MAY BE the artist has signature style …
There is a science on earth among the homely saps that spends a great deal of time and effort and discernment learning to distinguish the style of the great artists so that they can spot a fake. Yet even the fake mirrors the style that came from the heart of the artist. A fake Rembrandt is not a fake unless it does.
So where are our scientists and our media and our teachers that they can not recognize the signature of a great artist ….. ‘For the invisible things of him are clearly seen from the creation of the world, being understood by the things that are made, that is his signature artistic style; so that they are without excuse!’

“ Human speech traced to talking fish.

Researchers say real fish can communicate with sound, too. And they say (the researchers, that is) that your speech skills and, in fact, all sound production in vertebrates can be traced back to this ability in fish.

The scientists mapped developing brain cells in newly hatched midshipman fish larvae and compared them to those of other species. They found that the chirp of a bird, the bark of a dog and all the other sounds that come out of animals' mouths are the products of the neural circuitry likely laid down hundreds of millions of years ago with the hums and grunts of fish. ”

The Bible told us long long long before science came around that we learned to talk when God spent hours talking to us; and Now science thinks that it can intrude and tell us how we learned to talk ? ?
Science does not want “religion” to intrude on its territory …. OK who Was there first ? ? How could science have the arrogance and audacity to dare to insist where it does not know what it is talking about ? Nor can it know.

Hows about science just stick to the facts ! ! !

By the way, there IS a lot of difference between the ‘hums and grunts’ of a fish and science fiction at its best, or philosophy, or advance calculus or a Shakespeare play. A difference that 200 million or 200 billion years could NOT make ! !

What is in a word

A piece by Jan Hoffman in the New York Times recently went to work on the word “narcissism.” It noted that everyone and his brother is called a “narcissist” today, so that the word must lose its meaning. I apply "narcissist" to those who spend their lives admiring their own reflection, and by extension, to those who imagine the world revolves around them. Hoffman thinks we shouldn’t say “narcissist” until an official mad-doctor has given his or her opinion in a court of law. So I would reply: what if everyone and his brother IS a narcissist? Including the average court-appointed shrink? Does that mean no one is a narcissist anymore? The word “narcissist” is not flattering, and cannot be made flattering, without some supplementary effort to turn human nature upside down. Which doesn’t mean this hasn’t been tried. Verily, the generation after our whole education system was twisted to make “self-esteem” the highest virtue prized, we have an epidemic of narcissism. " David Warren

It used to be said that a rose by any other name is still a rose, I have often thought about the present effort to change a rose by changing its name. David sounds just like me. Let me see, there is homosexual now gay. There is group of close friends now family. There is having sex in the presence of each other now married …

my god

We just keep on going from amazing to more amazing and more and more amazing …..

“ Scientists have shown they are able to interpret the colour patterns seen in 100-million-year-old fossil feathers.

"The banding looks so life-like that it can't be geological in origin - it has to be biological," he said.

"But then how do you square that with the well-known fact that the majority of organic molecules decay in thousands of years?"

In 2006, researchers showed that some woolly mammoths would have sported dark brown coats, while others had pale ginger or blond hair.
The information was gleaned by analysis of genetic material extracted from a 43,000-year-old woolly mammoth bone from Siberia.
The same technique has been difficult to apply to creatures as old as the dinosaurs because of the lack of well-preserved genetic material. "

Imagine that, two 'well known facts' - "the majority of organic molecules decay in thousands of years?" and woolly is 43,010 years old ! ! ! and the feathers, my god, they ARE 100,000,000 !

AND once again ………
“ Hydrogen has long been touted as an alternative energy source to carbon-hungry fossil fuels.
One of the biggest obstacles to wider adoption of fuel-cell vehicles is the lack of hydrogen fuelling stations.
To be used as a fuel, hydrogen must first be produced using another energy source.
While some scientists are hopeful of the fuel uses of hydrogen, many others are skeptical because it is inefficient to produce, expensive to transport and to convert into electricity.
The hydrogen home refueling station works via an electrolyser which produces the gas from water and electricity.
An internal combustion generator converts the gas back into electricity to provide power for the home. ”
At school they taught us that one only gets as much energy out of hydrogen and oxygen combining as it took to separate them from water (assuming 100% conversion efficiency). YES, in fact where ever one gets ones hydrogen from it is expensive to get it AND it takes ENERGY, lots of ENERGY.
Lots of people have never gained a healthy respect for gasoline. OR propane. Have you ever seen hydrogen blow up ? Even a little tinny weensy bit of it ? ?
Remember the Hindenburg !


AND wouldn’t you know it, our efficiency boosting reliance on the super computer has gobbled up – what ? Profits ! !
“US clothing maker Levi Strauss has seen profits dive as a result of weak consumer spending and costly new software which disrupted supplies.”

Come on, everything works better with a computer hitched to it, everyone knows that ! ! !