Friday, February 16, 2007

The Day They Love To Hate

Those jaded or jilted by love aren't the only ones who hate Valentine's Day. A group of extremist Indian Hindus is down on love as well.

The group, called Shiv Sena, sees Valentine's Day as an immoral celebration and an incursion of Western values upon their own. So on February 14th they held demonstrations, burning Valentine's Day cards and, in a masterful showing of their personification skills, shouting "Death to Valentine's Day!"

That's showing us decadent Western folk!

Not to be outdone by their longtime foes, Muslims in Kashmir (the scene of disputes between Indian Hindus and Pakistani Muslims) interrupted romantic dinners with admonitions to the amorous.

For some cultures, the West has become a scapegoat for all that is wrong in the world. But I won't take any criticism from people who physically attack others for public displays of affection (as practiced by some Hindus), or who kill people and destroy property over, say, a satirical cartoon (as, well, you know that story...).

People like this have no moral authority, nor any hint of tolerance, reason or restraint in their hearts. When looking for "wrong" they need look no further than in the mirror.

PS: Get a life!

13 comments:

Double D said...

Boggs, I couldn't agree with you more! Its funny that the West (especially the old U.S. of A.) is always the "evil" in the world. Granted, our country has a lot of immorality, but the mainstream American just wants to live life and pursue happiness.
I think some of these feelings from other countries may arise from a little jealousy. The fact that our liberties allow for our unequaled prosperity grates on their nerves. They can't stand the fact that we can criticize our own government, worship where and how we want, choose our own career and mate, and top it all off with a cold beer and a baseball game! So let these intolerant morons bash the most benevolent country in the world. Maybe its time we stop all of our tax money going to them for food, medicine etc. But you and I and all the bloggas know we won't, because that's the heart of our country-to help those in need.

Jack K. said...

It certainly gives new meaning to the adage: "My way or the Highway."

Notice, I did not say, nor mean the high road.

Pete Bogs said...

DD - we basically are good people trying to live our lives... there certainly is jealousy, and a whole lot of ignorance about us...

jack - they don't seem to know the concept of the high road...

Bird said...

i can't quite see the US as so benovolent.

yeah, we contribute to other countries and provide aid - but nto that much (norway gives more than we do in foreign aid, if you compare by the ratio - and with less strings attached.)

i do not think of our government as benovolent or generous, though i think many of us as citizens are indeed generous. and well-intended.

but as far as valentine's day goes - well! they can complain as much as they want - as long as they don't prohibit me from enjoying my fare share of flowers and chocolate! that's what really matters!

elated valentine kisses and hugs to you bogs! hahahahaha!

flap/flap/swoosh!

Bird said...

hahaha - those hugs and kisses are not just "elated" but also Belated bogs!

Hellpig said...

Bird teachers teach because they are useless at everything else

The USA provides 5 times the aid then the entire world combined get your facts in order,without US aid the world would collapse around Communism and Islam.

One more thing without the USA the entire world including SF will be praying to Mecca 5 times a day.Actually SF will be burning to the ground can't have faggots in Islam or liberals for that matter,try rooting for the home team once in awhile.

Aunty Belle said...

Sweet Shoat,
I LUVS ya!! Youse jes' so so smart.

Uh oh Birdy--another Double D is hangin' around (hee hee)

Anonymous said...

yes, pig, if you look simply at the amount of money the US gives in foreign aid it would appear that we give more than anyone.

but if you look at the situation critically, if you look at the percentage of our GNP that we give, compared to the percentage of what some other countries give of their GNP, you'll see that we give less. Think of it this way - Ralph makes 20 bucks a year - and he gives 10 of it to charity - he gives 50% of his income to charity. Joe makes 100 bucks a year and he gives away twice what Ralph gives- he gives 20, but he's only giving 20 per cent of his income. So who is giving more? Joe or Ralph? ALthough Joe gives more in the amount, Ralph is actually the more generous.

and let's consider your claim that without the US, the world would be praying to Mecca - pretty sweeping claim there pig. it's debatable to say the least - it is not a fact, it's an unsupported opinion.

Now explain this to me, pig, why can't you just argue on the points instead of always engaging in these bullshit ad hominem attacks?

root for the home team? Yeah - GO GIANTS!

flap/flap/swoosh

Aunty Belle said...

Oh mah heavens....on the matter of US charity and willin'ness ter give:

Bird, shure--OK, ya' can look at the % BUT, the thang is, even if Ralph is givin' more'n Joe, percentage-wise, that starvin' kid on the street wants what Joe is givin' cause it is more--he doan
care that Ralph's percentage is greater cause actual amount is only 10 bucks and that won't buy a burger and a bed.

Nope, the starvin' kid wants Joe's 20 bucks, and could care less if it represents less of Joe's total worth.

Or think of it like this:

A truck done rolled over Bawgs and he is pinned to the street. Along comes Aunty Belle who huffs and puffs and wif ever'thang she gots she tried to budge that truck off of our dear Bawgs. She throwd her back out, busted a gusset, and the truck did not budge but an inch.

Then along strolls the Hulk who reached down and lifted that dern truck like it were a toy--and saves our beloved BAwgs!! But Hulk, he didn't even break a sweat.

Now fer all mah love of Bags, all my effort, which do ya' think BAwgs is most grateful fer? My 100 % effort that were jes' 2% effective, or Hulk's 2% effort that was 100% effective?

An' lemme note too that much of what the US gives is not in outright $$$ but includes funding of a zillion programs that are aimed at elevatin' the poor of the world. More research grants to solve malaria problems, more "used" equipment for hospitals and schools because the newest technology comes at us faster than we can absorb--hence Cat scanners that is less than a year old go to the Ivory Coast, etc, etc.....

We could always do more, but in terms of actual good impact on those who need help the most, USA does the most for the most people.

In real life, the US gets more done--even if we do it with less %.

The other thang, ya'll is that US individuals give the MOST in the world..so contrast that with Sweden, say, whar' the taxes is over 70 %...so when the gov't gives
it ain't voluntary to the Swedes--it serves Swedish foreign policy by force (As it does fer us'uns too).

But Americans go on to give individually like Bird said--makin' us really pretty decent folks.

But WAIT!!! Bird...ain't ya' gonna say somethin' at all about that other DD???

Pete Bogs said...

I think Americans are basically decent people... we've been stingy in some places in generous in others... we've not put the kind of money into Africa and other places that we could...

I get sick of all the blaming of the West for everything... Valentine's Day is not a threat to anyone... their kind of radical thinking (ironically) is, however...

Bird said...

i hear your point ab - but ....

we puff our chests and say how much we give, when we don't give what we could.

and think of all we take. what are we, less than 23% oif the world's population - using up way more than 50% of the world's resources.

there's a balance sheet. we should give more- we take more.

that's all.

there's an old jewish tale. about a rich man, who give and gives - he is always on the top of the list because he gives more than anyone else.

but things go awry for him; he loses his fortune. he suffers. life is not good. time comes to give again, and he gives what he can, but it's nothing to compare at all with the splendor of what he gave before.

and yet, his name still appears at the top of the list. because he gave all that he could of what he had - because he still gave the most of anyone - given what his resources were. whether rich or poor - he is always a truly generous man.

but why does it have to be a competition? why do we have to walk about with chests puffed out - look! look! look how much we give - aren't we the best? aren't we the most generous?

a truly generous people and a truly generous government wouldn't rub everyone's faces in their generosity.

we do that too much. it's beneath us. we should be better than that.

(and oh yeah, does our "charity" come with strings attached. 'course,as you say, ab, quite a few other countries' charity comes with strings attached - but some of 'em come with less.

Bird said...

by the way - i hate blogger's new sign in crap and i hate word verification.

oh bogs! i suffer so! hahahaha!

Bird said...

by the way - i hate blogger's new sign in crap and i hate word verification.

oh bogs! i suffer so! hahahaha!