Calculating? Naive? Or Just Plain Stupid?

Pope Benedict is heard to utter references to 14th-century Muslim teaching about the spreading of the faith by use of the sword. He was speaking at the educational institution where he taught for many years in Germany.
Immediately some Muslims are up in arms. How dare he criticise Islam. Why does he draw references linking Islam to violence? Has he forgotten the Crusades which were intent on killing all Muslims?
What the Pope said was - to say the least - unfortunate in these days of tension between the Western "democratic" ethos and the Islamic ways of life.
For all his years of study and prayer, Pope Benedict has shown a complete lack of understanding of the world around him.
He must be an intelligent man or else he would not have been elevated to his lofty position as "Christ's representative on Earth".
There are three possible reasons for his statements:

1. It was a calculated statement in order to promote more antagonism between Christian and Muslim.
2. He was naive enough to think that all people would take his words in the spirit of historical fact.
3. HE IS JUST PLAIN STUPID!

Let's hope it's the last reason and we can all just write off Pope Benedict the Stupid as a madman who should be ignored. If this is not the case then the Pope will go down in history as the biggest supporter of Mad George W.

Perhaps he has an inbuilt German guilt for what the Nazis did to the Jews and wants to pacify them? I hope it isn't that simple because it would show that he hasn't thought things through to their logical conclusion.

Perhaps we will hear that Benedict advocates nuking Tehran or Islamabad?

Stupid, bloody stupid!

An Inconvenient Website?

So Al Gore, ex-Presidential candidate, has written a book and a film about global warming.
Called "An Inconvenient Truth", I'm sure it has many erudite things to say about the wasteful state of human life. It's about time that someone told the Americans how much they are squandering the earth's resources and as such I applaud any attempt by a respected American politician to bring it to the public's notice.
Having watched an interview on BBC's Breakfast Show with Mr Gore explaining the meaning of his film, shortly to be released in the UK, I decided to find out more. I surfed the net and found a site which would, hopefully, expound Mr Gore's beliefs in more detail.
The site had a prominent link on it marked "PLEDGE".
I went to it. Perhaps if it was a site where one could pledge to use less energy I would sign up. But no, it was a site where you could pledge to go and see the film. Still good, you may think, since it may make you think about the future of the planet and what we can do about it. But on the same page I see a link to "PARAMOUNT CLASSICS" which presumably advertises the other movies that studio produces. Suddenly I lost interest in the site. Here was a man who was purportedly trying to help save mankind from self-destruction helping to advertise an entertainment company.
Paramount would undoubtedly want to make money from Al Gore's film.
But when it is making money out of something as important as this - and probably wasting precious resources in the making and marketing of the movie - one wonders what the true motives are.
Is Mr Gore really a believer in saving the planet? Or is he just another cynic?
Altruism, it seems, is dying. And, until we realise this and try to revive true love of our planet and our fellow man, so is the planet.

Sorry is just a Word . . .

Reading some of the news today I see that "Prince" Naseem Hamed has been released from prison. He served less than four months of a fifteen-month sentence for driving dangerously. Hamed drove his McLaren Mercedes at more than 90mph while overtaking on the brow of a hill. His car was involved in a head-on smash with a VW occupied by a Mr Burgin and his wife. Mr Burgin broke nearly every bone in his body and is very lucky still to be alive. Months of reconstructive surgery were required to get him back in one piece but his health and body have both been permanently damaged. His wife suffered relatively minor injuries but is now unable to get in a car from pure fear. The whole episode has caused extreme strain to their relationship. Neither person will ever be the same as before the incident. The judge at the trial expressed concern that he had not been given all of Hamed's criminal driving history - the DVLC had withheld some of it on the grounds that it might infringe Hamed's human rights. What the hell did condemning Mr Burgin to a life of disability do if not infringe his human rights? Reading between the lines one suspects that the judge would have given a much stiffer sentence had he known the full history of Hamed's stupidity behind the wheel. The only other penalty Hamed received was to be banned from driving for just four years. After that he can go out and try to kill more road users. Next time he might even be successful.
On leaving prison Hamed expressed regret for Mr Burgin's injuries with his words but not with his actions.
He was whisked away in a top-of-the-range Rolls Royce accompanied by a stretched Range Rover for his entourage. How heartless!
Hamed was only too quick to say what he had suffered. He had missed the birth of his baby, he had been taken out of society for nearly four months.
We are told by the media that he has not even contacted the Burgins directly to offer apologies and has not offered monetary compensation, even though he is a multi-millionaire and could easily afford to offer enough for them to live as comfortably as possible under their now restricted circumstances. They are not entitled to compensation under the Criminal Injuries legislation so are reduced to taking legal action. It is thought that such action would realise compensation of around £1 million. Small beer when you consider exactly what has been taken away from Mr Burgin for the rest of his life - not just four months.
Sorry is just a word . . .
Hamed made his money by knocking seven kinds of brick-dust out of his opponents. Having nearly knocked the whole life out of Mr Burgin just to show off a new car, he should be made to pay in what seems the only way that will hurt him - through his pocket.
I suppose to be a champion boxer you have to be self-centred. But to nearly murder someone because you want to show off your material possessions is plain criminal.
On the evidence we have seen in the press Naseem Hamed should have been sentenced to - and served - a much longer prison sentence.
He should never be allowed to drive again.
He should be made to pay the vast majority of his wealth in compensation.
He is a selfish, horrible person whose self-centred ego is still too large for real life.
Naseem Hamed comes out of prison showing all the attributes of a nasty, selfish little person.

The Enemy Within?

Prominently featured in the newspapers in UK over the last few days has been the story of the "Muslim Miss England".
Pictures of a very beautiful nineteen-year-old student adorned the pages. But Hammasa Kohistani has shown she is not just a pretty face with a shapely body. She is shown not as the beauty queen but as an intelligent student studying for her A levels complete with textbook under her arm. And she proves she has a thinking brain. She states that Tony Blair and the Government are fuelling hysteria over terrorism and Islam. She says the connection had created a "negative image" of Muslims.
"Tony Blair addressed Muslims in particular, telling them that they need to sort out the problem within," she said. "That was a huge stereotype of the Islamic community." She further stated that even moderate Muslims have been caught in the stereotyped negativity, thus making them feel they have to take actions to prove themselves.
Ms Kohistani's family left Afghanistan because of the Taliban regime and she was born in Uzbekistan. The family eventually arrived in England where she has had the benefit of a British education and thus had many opportunities that her peers in Afghanistan cannot even dream of.
It is good that she can put her point of view and I admit that I can see the truth in much that she says.
We are not so much a multi-cultural society as a fragmented society paying lip service to a "one nation" principle. Yes, it is good that cultures other than the accepted "British" one are encouraged. Freedom of thought is paramount in this world. But Ms Kohistani has been one of the lucky few who keep the faith but are able to live in this culture. She is able to combine both. Would that all people - whatever their beliefs - could do the same. But to some - be they fanatical about their religion, their politics or whatever - that would be anathema.
We have been here before. The way we deserted the Palestinians in the 1940s, the troubles with the Mau Mau in Kenya in the 1950s, the Irish question based on religious bigotry on all sides - all show that we have never quite come to terms with true multi-culturalism.
Would that we could all "live and let live".