Much is being made of the fact that the man allegedly responsible for the mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, is Muslim.
I can’t help wondering what the reaction would have been had his name been John Matthew Smith, born in the U.S. but the child of British immigrants, and a practicing Christian who had once, years ago, attended the same church as Timothy McVeigh for a couple of years.
I suspect it would have been a mass shrug, followed by a “So what?”
And let’s take it one step further. What if he, John Matthew Smith, was, in fact, religiously motivated: a Christian fanatic attempting to bring about the apocalypse through mass murder? Would all of the Christian groups in the country be required to defend themselves, to say “he doesn’t represent us”? Of course not.
The public and the media would be saying that Smith was a troubled man who misinterpreted his religion to suit his illness. Someone who had done something horrible, certainly, but a lone actor, not representative of anything.
Smith. Hasan. A lot is in a name.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
A Fair Price for eBooks?
There is a lot of discussion, with eBooks and eReaders in their infancy, of what constitutes a fair price for an eBook.
Large publishers, for whom printing is a small part of their cost compared to publicity, distribution and royalties, feel that eBooks should cost the same as “regular” printed books.
Small publishers, who pay a larger percentage of their costs for printing, think eBooks should be cheaper.
I am neither a large nor a small publisher, but a reader – in fact, an incessant reader. As such, no one has asked for my opinion, but I am presenting it anyway.
I like eBooks: they take up much less storage space, are easier to carry around (my little eReader holds hundreds), and are better for the environment. Despite these benefits, I am well aware of their deficiencies, and the fact that I am getting much less for my money.
If I buy a wonderful print book and want to re-read it 20 years from now, nothing will stop me from doing so. With an eBook, particularly now, with a dozen different formats around, chances are a book I buy today will not be readable 20 years from now.
Then there is sharing. If I enjoy a print book that I buy, I can pass it on to a friend when I am finished, or I can trade it at a used book store for another book. Not so an eBook. Thanks to DRM technology, the eBook will only work for me. If my friend wants to read it, she has to buy her own copy (unless I lend her my eReader as well, which presents obvious problems if all of my books are on there).
Are eBooks worthwhile? Absolutely. Are they worth the price of a new, hardcover, print book? Not to me, and not, I suspect, to many others.
Amazon appears to realize this, though their standard $9.99 price for Kindle eBooks may only be short-term, a way to draw people to a new technology. As they only sell in the U.S., their effect is limited.
Sony, the other big eBook company at the moment, tends to have slightly higher prices, though still below what the publishers want them to charge.
The major publishers need to get on board. If they want the public to invest in eBooks, they have to consider what the reader is getting, and price accordingly.
Large publishers, for whom printing is a small part of their cost compared to publicity, distribution and royalties, feel that eBooks should cost the same as “regular” printed books.
Small publishers, who pay a larger percentage of their costs for printing, think eBooks should be cheaper.
I am neither a large nor a small publisher, but a reader – in fact, an incessant reader. As such, no one has asked for my opinion, but I am presenting it anyway.
I like eBooks: they take up much less storage space, are easier to carry around (my little eReader holds hundreds), and are better for the environment. Despite these benefits, I am well aware of their deficiencies, and the fact that I am getting much less for my money.
If I buy a wonderful print book and want to re-read it 20 years from now, nothing will stop me from doing so. With an eBook, particularly now, with a dozen different formats around, chances are a book I buy today will not be readable 20 years from now.
Then there is sharing. If I enjoy a print book that I buy, I can pass it on to a friend when I am finished, or I can trade it at a used book store for another book. Not so an eBook. Thanks to DRM technology, the eBook will only work for me. If my friend wants to read it, she has to buy her own copy (unless I lend her my eReader as well, which presents obvious problems if all of my books are on there).
Are eBooks worthwhile? Absolutely. Are they worth the price of a new, hardcover, print book? Not to me, and not, I suspect, to many others.
Amazon appears to realize this, though their standard $9.99 price for Kindle eBooks may only be short-term, a way to draw people to a new technology. As they only sell in the U.S., their effect is limited.
Sony, the other big eBook company at the moment, tends to have slightly higher prices, though still below what the publishers want them to charge.
The major publishers need to get on board. If they want the public to invest in eBooks, they have to consider what the reader is getting, and price accordingly.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Why Tiller did what he did
Following the murder of Dr. George Tiller I have read a number of different reports. Most have lamented the murder of a human being, while a small group (all “Christian”) claimed that it was no more than he deserved for performing abortions.
There are some good people, however, appalled by what happened, who are also uncomfortable with the fact that Dr. Tiller was one of the few people who was willing to perform late-term abortions. And it is them I wish to address.
Most of us are bothered by the idea of a fetus that is nearly to term, nearly a baby, being forcibly aborted. What kind of person, we wonder, would do such a thing, or would have it done?
What is often not understood is that the vast majority of late-term abortions are not by careless or lazy women who “put it off” until the last possible minute. Virtually all of these people want their babies, and have every intention of having them until something goes terribly wrong.
I learned to accept late-term abortion with the pregnancy of a friend a few years ago. She and her husband were thrilled to be pregnant, and looking forward to welcoming their new life into the world. Then came the test results. The diagnostic term, at least back then, was “anencephalic monster”. A cyst had formed at the top of the spinal cord, and the baby had no brain. It was being kept alive inside the womb, but would die as soon as it was born.
My friend did not have an abortion. She carried the baby to term, and went through his birth and death. But late-term abortion was one of the options she considered, and I was right beside her. If she did not want to carry what was in essence a dead baby for the rest of the pregnancy, she had my full support.
And that is what late-term abortion is about. No, it isn’t nice, but neither is it frivolous. These people have thought – and cried – long and hard about what they are doing, and deserve the right to make that choice.
There are some good people, however, appalled by what happened, who are also uncomfortable with the fact that Dr. Tiller was one of the few people who was willing to perform late-term abortions. And it is them I wish to address.
Most of us are bothered by the idea of a fetus that is nearly to term, nearly a baby, being forcibly aborted. What kind of person, we wonder, would do such a thing, or would have it done?
What is often not understood is that the vast majority of late-term abortions are not by careless or lazy women who “put it off” until the last possible minute. Virtually all of these people want their babies, and have every intention of having them until something goes terribly wrong.
I learned to accept late-term abortion with the pregnancy of a friend a few years ago. She and her husband were thrilled to be pregnant, and looking forward to welcoming their new life into the world. Then came the test results. The diagnostic term, at least back then, was “anencephalic monster”. A cyst had formed at the top of the spinal cord, and the baby had no brain. It was being kept alive inside the womb, but would die as soon as it was born.
My friend did not have an abortion. She carried the baby to term, and went through his birth and death. But late-term abortion was one of the options she considered, and I was right beside her. If she did not want to carry what was in essence a dead baby for the rest of the pregnancy, she had my full support.
And that is what late-term abortion is about. No, it isn’t nice, but neither is it frivolous. These people have thought – and cried – long and hard about what they are doing, and deserve the right to make that choice.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
350.org - Saving our planet
I am sure I am not the only one who rolls my eyes in utter frustration at the response of governments worldwide to climate change.
At first, of course, they simply denied it. If it didn't exist, they weren't required to do anything about it. That was easy. By now, however, even the governments with their heads most deeply in the sand have had to accept that the climate is changing at a rapid rate, and this is being caused by human behaviour.
Having reached that conclusion, it would appear that the next step would be obvious. We need to do something about it before the damage become so severe as to endanger human (and other) life on the planet.
That is precisely where the frustration comes in. Because although the governments agree in theory that this is necessary, there are always other "more important" things that take precedence: the economy, unemployment, war, etc.
Now, some level of idiocy may very well be required in anyone who is called to join the world of politics. The rest of us, however, must realize that the budget and the unemployment rate will mean very little if we have no food growing and our houses have been destroyed by storm and flood.
The condition of the earth must be our primary concern, because without a functional planet nothing else matters.
A group in Australia - where they have been experiencing radical droughts, heat waves and fires the past few years - has started an international group of the people to fight climate change. The group is called 350.org, based on the 350 ppm that scientists have identified as the safe upper limit for CO2 in our atmosphere.
They are trying to get people - not governments - all around the world to take a stand on climate change.They have the support of scientists and "big names" from around the world.
Can they make a difference? They can, if you join them. Watch the video, check out the web site, participate in the Global Day of Climate Action on 24 October.
We only have one planet. We need to look after it now.
At first, of course, they simply denied it. If it didn't exist, they weren't required to do anything about it. That was easy. By now, however, even the governments with their heads most deeply in the sand have had to accept that the climate is changing at a rapid rate, and this is being caused by human behaviour.
Having reached that conclusion, it would appear that the next step would be obvious. We need to do something about it before the damage become so severe as to endanger human (and other) life on the planet.
That is precisely where the frustration comes in. Because although the governments agree in theory that this is necessary, there are always other "more important" things that take precedence: the economy, unemployment, war, etc.
Now, some level of idiocy may very well be required in anyone who is called to join the world of politics. The rest of us, however, must realize that the budget and the unemployment rate will mean very little if we have no food growing and our houses have been destroyed by storm and flood.
The condition of the earth must be our primary concern, because without a functional planet nothing else matters.
A group in Australia - where they have been experiencing radical droughts, heat waves and fires the past few years - has started an international group of the people to fight climate change. The group is called 350.org, based on the 350 ppm that scientists have identified as the safe upper limit for CO2 in our atmosphere.
They are trying to get people - not governments - all around the world to take a stand on climate change.They have the support of scientists and "big names" from around the world.
Can they make a difference? They can, if you join them. Watch the video, check out the web site, participate in the Global Day of Climate Action on 24 October.
We only have one planet. We need to look after it now.
Friday, April 24, 2009
The myth of Canadian terrorists
Why is it that myths have a longer lifespan than truth? Another myth has raised its ugly head again, and again Canada will no doubt suffer the consequences.
The CBC’s Neil Macdonald was interviewing U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and he asked her to clarify comments she had made previously that the Canadian and Mexican borders must be given the same treatment. Her response:
"Yes, Canada is not Mexico. It doesn't have a drug war going on; it didn't have 6,000 homicides that were drug-related last year," Napolitano said.
"Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it's been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there."
Macdonald asked if she was referring to the 9/11 attackers. She stated: "Not just those but others as well."
Now according to the 2004 report of the 9/11 commission all of the terrorists flew into major U.S. airports from outside North America, carrying documents issued by the U.S. government. None came from Canada. Yet this story has persisted since the time of the bombing, and shows no signs of going away any time soon – especially if it is being repeated by the head of Homeland Security (am I the only one who thinks that “Homeland” has a Nazi sound to it?)
Why does it matter? After all, it’s just a silly story. Except that people in power in the U.S are using this lie as an excuse to further lock down the border between the countries, making trade and travel ever more difficult.
A few generations ago, there really was an open border between Canada and the U.S. I have relatives in Michigan, because a great-uncle (or maybe two “greats”) went across the bridge at Sarnia to work, and settled there.
I don’t expect that today. The world has changed a lot. But there is no need for the fanatical policing of the borders that the U.S. has started recently, with both physical and virtual fences, and unmanned drones watching from the air.
Canada is not the enemy. The guns that come north across the border are more dangerous than the imaginary terrorists that go south. Please, see someone about the paranoia. And stop telling lies.
The CBC’s Neil Macdonald was interviewing U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and he asked her to clarify comments she had made previously that the Canadian and Mexican borders must be given the same treatment. Her response:
"Yes, Canada is not Mexico. It doesn't have a drug war going on; it didn't have 6,000 homicides that were drug-related last year," Napolitano said.
"Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it's been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there."
Macdonald asked if she was referring to the 9/11 attackers. She stated: "Not just those but others as well."
Now according to the 2004 report of the 9/11 commission all of the terrorists flew into major U.S. airports from outside North America, carrying documents issued by the U.S. government. None came from Canada. Yet this story has persisted since the time of the bombing, and shows no signs of going away any time soon – especially if it is being repeated by the head of Homeland Security (am I the only one who thinks that “Homeland” has a Nazi sound to it?)
Why does it matter? After all, it’s just a silly story. Except that people in power in the U.S are using this lie as an excuse to further lock down the border between the countries, making trade and travel ever more difficult.
A few generations ago, there really was an open border between Canada and the U.S. I have relatives in Michigan, because a great-uncle (or maybe two “greats”) went across the bridge at Sarnia to work, and settled there.
I don’t expect that today. The world has changed a lot. But there is no need for the fanatical policing of the borders that the U.S. has started recently, with both physical and virtual fences, and unmanned drones watching from the air.
Canada is not the enemy. The guns that come north across the border are more dangerous than the imaginary terrorists that go south. Please, see someone about the paranoia. And stop telling lies.
Monday, April 20, 2009
One seat, or two?
I read a news story this weekend stating that United Airlines was planning to force obese passengers to pay for an extra seat, or wait for a later plane if there was no extra seat available.
It wasn’t the story itself that bothered me, as much as the responses. There were dozens of comments, and almost everyone thought this was a wonderful idea. Virtually without exception, they took the point of view of the person sitting next to the obese passenger, who prefers not to be made uncomfortable.
While I don’t fall in the two-seat category – I can put down the arm-rest and buckle my seatbelt, which are the tests – I am a larger person. Maybe that is why I see it from the other side as well.
Imagine you have a vacation planned. You and your partner have splurged and bought expensive tickets to somewhere exotic. You get to the airport, packed, excited and ready to go, only to be told you have to buy an additional ticket. You can’t afford another ticket. You are humiliated, and your vacation is ruined.
Or you have a business meeting. Your company buys you a plane ticket. You go to board, and discover that not only will you need an extra seat, which your company won’t pay for, but there is no extra seat available on this flight, so you will have to wait for one that has two free seats – and you will miss your meeting.
The cost, the humiliation, the lost time – how would you feel if it was you?
I know all of the arguments. “If my luggage is overweight, I have to pay more. It’s the same thing”. You can choose to pack less. You can’t just slice off a chunk of yourself in time for the flight.
“Why should I be uncomfortable?” Well, I like to be comfortable, too, but on public transportation it doesn’t always work out that way. Babies scream, seatmates won’t shut up, or drink too much. That’s life.
“They can lose weight if they want to”. Maybe they can, I don’t know. But not by the time the flight leaves, so it isn’t really relevant.
The Canadian Transport Agency ruled in 2008 that airline passengers here would pay one fair per person. Carriers are expected to accommodate all passengers. I consider that fair. In the United States and other countries, however, this is not the case. They can make extra money from someone’s problem, and many have chosen to do so.
It would certainly make me think twice before flying with them, even if I did get a comfortable seat.
It wasn’t the story itself that bothered me, as much as the responses. There were dozens of comments, and almost everyone thought this was a wonderful idea. Virtually without exception, they took the point of view of the person sitting next to the obese passenger, who prefers not to be made uncomfortable.
While I don’t fall in the two-seat category – I can put down the arm-rest and buckle my seatbelt, which are the tests – I am a larger person. Maybe that is why I see it from the other side as well.
Imagine you have a vacation planned. You and your partner have splurged and bought expensive tickets to somewhere exotic. You get to the airport, packed, excited and ready to go, only to be told you have to buy an additional ticket. You can’t afford another ticket. You are humiliated, and your vacation is ruined.
Or you have a business meeting. Your company buys you a plane ticket. You go to board, and discover that not only will you need an extra seat, which your company won’t pay for, but there is no extra seat available on this flight, so you will have to wait for one that has two free seats – and you will miss your meeting.
The cost, the humiliation, the lost time – how would you feel if it was you?
I know all of the arguments. “If my luggage is overweight, I have to pay more. It’s the same thing”. You can choose to pack less. You can’t just slice off a chunk of yourself in time for the flight.
“Why should I be uncomfortable?” Well, I like to be comfortable, too, but on public transportation it doesn’t always work out that way. Babies scream, seatmates won’t shut up, or drink too much. That’s life.
“They can lose weight if they want to”. Maybe they can, I don’t know. But not by the time the flight leaves, so it isn’t really relevant.
The Canadian Transport Agency ruled in 2008 that airline passengers here would pay one fair per person. Carriers are expected to accommodate all passengers. I consider that fair. In the United States and other countries, however, this is not the case. They can make extra money from someone’s problem, and many have chosen to do so.
It would certainly make me think twice before flying with them, even if I did get a comfortable seat.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Rights and Freedoms?
Abousfian Abdelrazik is a Canadian citizen. According to both the RCMP and CSIS he has no links to terrorists, and has committed no crimes. Under Section 6 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as a citizen, he has a right to enter Canada. Yet he is stuck in Sudan, camping out in the lobby of the Canadian Embassy in Khartoum, where he has been for the past year after going to the country to visit his mother.
The issue, says the government, is that Abdelrazik is on the "no-fly" list. This list - which requires no proof of any wrong-doing - apparently supersedes his rights as a Canadian.
Ottawa has denied him an emergency passport, citing a section of the Canada Passport Order that allows them to "refuse or revoke a passport if the minister is of the opinion that such action is necessary for the national security of Canada or another country."
Remember, no one claims this man has committed any crime.
International rules, even ones which require no supporting evidence whatsoever, would appear to be more important to the government of Canada than the rights of Canadian citizens. Gee, it sure is nice to know that your country will be there to stand by you when you need them.
Abdelrazik has a team of lawyers, who are currently working on having him returned home. I suspect they will succeed. That isn't the issue.
The Conservative government has also refused any help to Ronald Allen Smith, an Albertan held in an American prison and awaiting the death penalty, until they were literally forced by a court order on March 4 to continue the clemency appeal started by a previous government.
The government is supposed to work for the people in a democracy, not the other way around. But since Stephen Harper's Tories have been in power, it would appear that being a Canadian only guarantees you the rights that they see fit to allow you.
That is not what I want for my country and its citizens. This is just one more reason to get rid of the Conservatives - before they get rid of us.
The issue, says the government, is that Abdelrazik is on the "no-fly" list. This list - which requires no proof of any wrong-doing - apparently supersedes his rights as a Canadian.
Ottawa has denied him an emergency passport, citing a section of the Canada Passport Order that allows them to "refuse or revoke a passport if the minister is of the opinion that such action is necessary for the national security of Canada or another country."
Remember, no one claims this man has committed any crime.
International rules, even ones which require no supporting evidence whatsoever, would appear to be more important to the government of Canada than the rights of Canadian citizens. Gee, it sure is nice to know that your country will be there to stand by you when you need them.
Abdelrazik has a team of lawyers, who are currently working on having him returned home. I suspect they will succeed. That isn't the issue.
The Conservative government has also refused any help to Ronald Allen Smith, an Albertan held in an American prison and awaiting the death penalty, until they were literally forced by a court order on March 4 to continue the clemency appeal started by a previous government.
The government is supposed to work for the people in a democracy, not the other way around. But since Stephen Harper's Tories have been in power, it would appear that being a Canadian only guarantees you the rights that they see fit to allow you.
That is not what I want for my country and its citizens. This is just one more reason to get rid of the Conservatives - before they get rid of us.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Getting Old
My Dad died when he was 38. I saw a lot of death as a kid, and for a long time I thought that dying young was the worst thing that could happen. When my grandmother would have trouble standing up and tell me “Don’t ever get old” I would joke with her, and say it beat the alternative.
Lately I have started to wonder. I don’t qualify as “old” yet, but my parents and their friends are in their 70’s now, and a lot of it isn’t pleasant. Forget the whole “golden years” myth. My step-father was just diagnosed with prostate cancer, and his best friend’s wife has lung cancer and Alzheimer’s.
Every time I talk to my mother, someone else they know is sick, dying or dead. And rarely did they die peacefully in their sleep. There is a lot of suffering going on.
It just seems wrong. After a life spent working hard, raising a family and taking care of others, retirement and old age should be a time of vacations to sunny places and taking up hobbies. And I suppose for some it is. For so many, though, it is a time of pain, memory loss, helplessness, dependence and, of course, death.
I know that life isn’t fair. I got over that fantasy a long time ago. But it seems that there should be more to look forward to at the end than arthritis.
I'm not sure what the answer is. I am certainly not recommending mass suicide (or euthanasia) for everyone over 50. I guess I feel that we just need to appreciate the time we have more, and not put things off until "when I retire". Because who knows what will have happened by then?
I will end with a quote from Pernell Roberts, who is now about 80, but said this when he was much younger: "I find life very precious. I find it very immediate. I do not have a long-term point of view. I may be dead tomorrow. So it's very important that I do now what I want to do."
Lately I have started to wonder. I don’t qualify as “old” yet, but my parents and their friends are in their 70’s now, and a lot of it isn’t pleasant. Forget the whole “golden years” myth. My step-father was just diagnosed with prostate cancer, and his best friend’s wife has lung cancer and Alzheimer’s.
Every time I talk to my mother, someone else they know is sick, dying or dead. And rarely did they die peacefully in their sleep. There is a lot of suffering going on.
It just seems wrong. After a life spent working hard, raising a family and taking care of others, retirement and old age should be a time of vacations to sunny places and taking up hobbies. And I suppose for some it is. For so many, though, it is a time of pain, memory loss, helplessness, dependence and, of course, death.
I know that life isn’t fair. I got over that fantasy a long time ago. But it seems that there should be more to look forward to at the end than arthritis.
I'm not sure what the answer is. I am certainly not recommending mass suicide (or euthanasia) for everyone over 50. I guess I feel that we just need to appreciate the time we have more, and not put things off until "when I retire". Because who knows what will have happened by then?
I will end with a quote from Pernell Roberts, who is now about 80, but said this when he was much younger: "I find life very precious. I find it very immediate. I do not have a long-term point of view. I may be dead tomorrow. So it's very important that I do now what I want to do."
Thursday, April 2, 2009
War and women in Afghanistan
I have to be honest: I was against the war in Afghanistan from the beginning. Before all of the deaths. Before it seemed as though it would stretch on forever. I just don’t believe in war as a way of solving disagreements.
But it seems to me that those who did support the war (like, say, our government) have now lost their last argument. How many times have we been told that all of the death and destruction in Afghanistan was for a higher purpose – that we had to help women in that country have the freedom they do here, and help girls get an education?
Well, the new law passed by the government we support in Afghanistan is about as far from that as you can get. To start with, it legalizes rape within marriage – that’s right, a husband is entitled to sex four times a week, whether or not his wife agrees. Women are also not allowed to leave the home without permission of their husband.
True, at the moment this law applies only to Shia women, which comprise approximately 15% of the population. But isn’t this moving in exactly the wrong direction? We were told Canadians were losing their lives (and taking those of Afghanis) so that women would have more freedom, not less.
The politicians on all sides are expressing their unhappiness with this law, and discussing what they might be able to do about it. There is one thing Canada can do, without winning the support of Hamid Karzai first. We can leave Afghanistan. Now.
Even Stephen Harper has admitted we cannot “win” a war there. It is now obvious we are not having other successes either. Let the Americans stay and add more troops if they so desire, but the best thing Canada can do, for everyone, is bring our soldiers home.
But it seems to me that those who did support the war (like, say, our government) have now lost their last argument. How many times have we been told that all of the death and destruction in Afghanistan was for a higher purpose – that we had to help women in that country have the freedom they do here, and help girls get an education?
Well, the new law passed by the government we support in Afghanistan is about as far from that as you can get. To start with, it legalizes rape within marriage – that’s right, a husband is entitled to sex four times a week, whether or not his wife agrees. Women are also not allowed to leave the home without permission of their husband.
True, at the moment this law applies only to Shia women, which comprise approximately 15% of the population. But isn’t this moving in exactly the wrong direction? We were told Canadians were losing their lives (and taking those of Afghanis) so that women would have more freedom, not less.
The politicians on all sides are expressing their unhappiness with this law, and discussing what they might be able to do about it. There is one thing Canada can do, without winning the support of Hamid Karzai first. We can leave Afghanistan. Now.
Even Stephen Harper has admitted we cannot “win” a war there. It is now obvious we are not having other successes either. Let the Americans stay and add more troops if they so desire, but the best thing Canada can do, for everyone, is bring our soldiers home.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Bed-in ... for what?
75-year-old Yoko Ono is in Montreal this week, commemorating the “bed in” for peace she celebrated with husband John Lennon 40 years ago.
It was 1969, and war raged in Vietnam. The newly-wed Lennons had a message to share with the world: war is over, if you want it. They rented a room at the Queen Elizabeth hotel in Montreal, got into bed, and invited the world into their room. They talked, and sang, and used John’s fame as a Beatle to get their message across. “All we are saying is give peace a chance.”
Such a simple message. Yet, forty years later, what has really changed? The war is in a different country. Millions more have died violently, including Lennon. Nowhere is there any indication that peace is any nearer than it was in 1969.
It saddens me to see people like Ono, or 89-year-old Pete Seeger, still out performing for peace. Not only have we not achieved an end to war, we don’t even have younger people willing to take up the work.
I do understand why. I was one of the tens of millions around the world marching to protest just before George W. Bush went into Iraq. The result? Bush remarked: "Size of protest — it's like deciding, well, I'm going to decide policy based upon a focus group", and continued to do exactly what he had planned to do. If the voice of millions doesn’t matter, why bother?
But of course it does matter, even though that is hard to see sometimes. We can have a peaceful world, despite the Bush types, if we are determined enough.
I have a quote from John Lennon that I use on some of my email: “When we say ‘War is over if you want it,’ we mean that if everyone demanded peace instead of another TV set, we'd have peace.”
How many TV sets do you own?
It was 1969, and war raged in Vietnam. The newly-wed Lennons had a message to share with the world: war is over, if you want it. They rented a room at the Queen Elizabeth hotel in Montreal, got into bed, and invited the world into their room. They talked, and sang, and used John’s fame as a Beatle to get their message across. “All we are saying is give peace a chance.”
Such a simple message. Yet, forty years later, what has really changed? The war is in a different country. Millions more have died violently, including Lennon. Nowhere is there any indication that peace is any nearer than it was in 1969.
It saddens me to see people like Ono, or 89-year-old Pete Seeger, still out performing for peace. Not only have we not achieved an end to war, we don’t even have younger people willing to take up the work.
I do understand why. I was one of the tens of millions around the world marching to protest just before George W. Bush went into Iraq. The result? Bush remarked: "Size of protest — it's like deciding, well, I'm going to decide policy based upon a focus group", and continued to do exactly what he had planned to do. If the voice of millions doesn’t matter, why bother?
But of course it does matter, even though that is hard to see sometimes. We can have a peaceful world, despite the Bush types, if we are determined enough.
I have a quote from John Lennon that I use on some of my email: “When we say ‘War is over if you want it,’ we mean that if everyone demanded peace instead of another TV set, we'd have peace.”
How many TV sets do you own?
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Galloway and the risk to Canada
Once again my country is embarrassing me. Okay, technically it isn’t my country, it is the Harper government (what else is new?), but on the international news they only report what “Canada” is doing.
It seems that George Galloway, a British MP for 23 years, an anti-war activist who spoke in Canada last year and is currently in the United States, will not be allowed to visit Canada on a scheduled speaking tour because he is a “security risk”.
Galloway has no criminal record, no history of violence, but is considered a threat to Canada because he is a supporter of Hamas – who, I might point out, is a democratically elected government that has never threatened Canada in any way.
The opinions Galloway holds about the Israeli/Palestinian land – that it should form a single state in which Jews, Muslims and Christians would live as equals – is not popular with the Tories. But they say this is not an issue of free speech. It is strictly the danger he poses to the country.
Now, if he were someone who had attacked foreign countries for no reason, committing war crimes and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, I could understand some hesitancy in allowing him within our borders. But George W. Bush was just welcomed with open arms.
It makes me uncomfortable when warmongers are welcomed by my government while those who oppose violence are considered a threat. Stephen Harper, it would appear, considers me a danger to my own country. But then, I feel the same about him, so I guess it is only fair.
Probably a bigger concern is the one that the Conservatives say is not an issue: free speech. In a minority position they are keeping out foreigners who say things they don’t like. What they might do if they ever win a majority is truly a scary thought.
It seems that George Galloway, a British MP for 23 years, an anti-war activist who spoke in Canada last year and is currently in the United States, will not be allowed to visit Canada on a scheduled speaking tour because he is a “security risk”.
Galloway has no criminal record, no history of violence, but is considered a threat to Canada because he is a supporter of Hamas – who, I might point out, is a democratically elected government that has never threatened Canada in any way.
The opinions Galloway holds about the Israeli/Palestinian land – that it should form a single state in which Jews, Muslims and Christians would live as equals – is not popular with the Tories. But they say this is not an issue of free speech. It is strictly the danger he poses to the country.
Now, if he were someone who had attacked foreign countries for no reason, committing war crimes and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, I could understand some hesitancy in allowing him within our borders. But George W. Bush was just welcomed with open arms.
It makes me uncomfortable when warmongers are welcomed by my government while those who oppose violence are considered a threat. Stephen Harper, it would appear, considers me a danger to my own country. But then, I feel the same about him, so I guess it is only fair.
Probably a bigger concern is the one that the Conservatives say is not an issue: free speech. In a minority position they are keeping out foreigners who say things they don’t like. What they might do if they ever win a majority is truly a scary thought.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Microfinance, Kiva and You
Although many people in these days of recession have all they can do to look after themselves and their families, there are always some with a bit to spare, and many of those want to help others.
There are many ways to help, and I would never rate one above another. Anything we can do for those in trouble is valuable. What I would like to do is introduce another way to help that many people may not be familiar with.
Some of you may have heard the term “microfinance”. Simply put, it is the process of providing very small loans to people, often in the developing world, who would not qualify for a loan through a regular bank. These people, many of them women, have no collateral, but want to get started in a small business.
The idea is believed to have started in 1976 with the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, which still provides microcredit to impoverished women there. It has helped many families climb out of desperate poverty.
Very interesting, you are saying (or maybe not), but what does this have to do with me? I’m not a bank.
Well, I was looking into a way to help people that would not cost more than I could afford, and I came across www.kiva.org. This organization allows individuals to get involved in microfinance.
It works like this: a woman in Ghana wants to borrow $500 to expand her food stall. Kiva organizes loans of $25 each from 20 different lenders to make up the amount, provides the money, sets up a repayment schedule, and collects the payments. Their default rate is 2.1%.
You, as the lender, do not make any money. The interest charged goes to run the organization. But when you get your $25 back, you can lend it to someone else, and use the same money to help several people.
If you have $25 to spare, give it a thought. You get to choose the people and projects your money helps, and receive reports on their progress. Who knows - you just might change some lives.
There are many ways to help, and I would never rate one above another. Anything we can do for those in trouble is valuable. What I would like to do is introduce another way to help that many people may not be familiar with.
Some of you may have heard the term “microfinance”. Simply put, it is the process of providing very small loans to people, often in the developing world, who would not qualify for a loan through a regular bank. These people, many of them women, have no collateral, but want to get started in a small business.
The idea is believed to have started in 1976 with the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, which still provides microcredit to impoverished women there. It has helped many families climb out of desperate poverty.
Very interesting, you are saying (or maybe not), but what does this have to do with me? I’m not a bank.
Well, I was looking into a way to help people that would not cost more than I could afford, and I came across www.kiva.org. This organization allows individuals to get involved in microfinance.
It works like this: a woman in Ghana wants to borrow $500 to expand her food stall. Kiva organizes loans of $25 each from 20 different lenders to make up the amount, provides the money, sets up a repayment schedule, and collects the payments. Their default rate is 2.1%.
You, as the lender, do not make any money. The interest charged goes to run the organization. But when you get your $25 back, you can lend it to someone else, and use the same money to help several people.
If you have $25 to spare, give it a thought. You get to choose the people and projects your money helps, and receive reports on their progress. Who knows - you just might change some lives.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Getting rid of the gangs
When I heard that Stephen Harper was going to “deal with” the gang violence in Vancouver, I assumed it would be a typical conservative solution. Unfortunately, he didn’t surprise me.
Punishment, and yet more punishment, to “deter” the bad guys. Tougher drug laws. An automatic first degree murder charge for any gang-related killing.
There is one major problem with this: it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because the killers never intend to get caught. They never think “I could get life in prison instead of 25 years if I get caught for this, so I won’t do it.” Ever. Harsher laws have been tried before, over and over, and they have failed every time.
So what is the solution? First, leave the murder law as it is. Most gang killings are already pre-meditated (first-degree) murders, so nothing needs to change there.
Second, legalize drugs. That’s right: marijuana, cocaine, heroin, all of them. Make them legal, sell them through legitimate retailers similar to the Liquor Control Board, and tax them heftily.
This would solve several problems. It would remove the main purpose of most of the gangs, causing many to disband. It would eliminate, or at least minimize, disease and death caused by badly cut drugs and dirty needles. It would add tax money our economy could certainly use. And studies in the few countries that have done this have shown that it does not cause an increase in drug addiction.
Finally, some of that additional tax money can be used to fund programs to give kids things to do with their time other than joining gangs – sports, after-school programs, etc.
It may not be as obvious a solution, or as fulfilling in the short term as throwing people in prison, but if we want to prevent crime and not just punish it after it is too late, this is the way to go.
Punishment, and yet more punishment, to “deter” the bad guys. Tougher drug laws. An automatic first degree murder charge for any gang-related killing.
There is one major problem with this: it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because the killers never intend to get caught. They never think “I could get life in prison instead of 25 years if I get caught for this, so I won’t do it.” Ever. Harsher laws have been tried before, over and over, and they have failed every time.
So what is the solution? First, leave the murder law as it is. Most gang killings are already pre-meditated (first-degree) murders, so nothing needs to change there.
Second, legalize drugs. That’s right: marijuana, cocaine, heroin, all of them. Make them legal, sell them through legitimate retailers similar to the Liquor Control Board, and tax them heftily.
This would solve several problems. It would remove the main purpose of most of the gangs, causing many to disband. It would eliminate, or at least minimize, disease and death caused by badly cut drugs and dirty needles. It would add tax money our economy could certainly use. And studies in the few countries that have done this have shown that it does not cause an increase in drug addiction.
Finally, some of that additional tax money can be used to fund programs to give kids things to do with their time other than joining gangs – sports, after-school programs, etc.
It may not be as obvious a solution, or as fulfilling in the short term as throwing people in prison, but if we want to prevent crime and not just punish it after it is too late, this is the way to go.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Rights vs. Fear
I think I am going to start stocking up on rotten tomatoes to use on the next person who uses the word "terrorism" as an excuse to attack basic freedoms.
I have known one person in my life who was killed in a terrorist attack. That was a horrible situation, and one that I would prefer never happen again.
However, everyone I know has been affected by the attack on their rights and freedoms by their own governments under the excuse - and that is all it is - of preventing terrorism.
Everything from disallowing a tube of toothpaste in a carry-on bag on a plane, to intercepting telephone calls without a warrant is done under the claim that it will stop terrorists. It won't. What it will do is complicate the lives and remove the freedoms of innocent people. The terrorists, if they are out there, will find a way.
Why am I talking about this now, when it is essentially old news? Because I had been hopeful that things would start to improve when the paranoid Bush regime was gone from power. Yet I found two new "anti-terrorist" activities in the news just today.
The Americans are launching unmanned (and, for the moment, at least) unarmed drones to fly along the Manitoba border. There goes that whole concept of "the world's longest undefended border" that we were taught about in school.
And in England, the powers that be have decided that people should no longer be allowed to photograph police officers, because the photographers might be terrorist groups taking reconnaissance shots. Not only will there be a lot of disappointed tourists, but this would also mean that bad cops could assault people without the risk of exposure.
When does this stupidity stop? When are people going to stand up and say "my rights are more important than my fear"? Because until we do, the governments are going to use this excuse to do all of the things they always wanted, but were never allowed.
We have more to fear from our own governments than from some threat from the middle east.
I have known one person in my life who was killed in a terrorist attack. That was a horrible situation, and one that I would prefer never happen again.
However, everyone I know has been affected by the attack on their rights and freedoms by their own governments under the excuse - and that is all it is - of preventing terrorism.
Everything from disallowing a tube of toothpaste in a carry-on bag on a plane, to intercepting telephone calls without a warrant is done under the claim that it will stop terrorists. It won't. What it will do is complicate the lives and remove the freedoms of innocent people. The terrorists, if they are out there, will find a way.
Why am I talking about this now, when it is essentially old news? Because I had been hopeful that things would start to improve when the paranoid Bush regime was gone from power. Yet I found two new "anti-terrorist" activities in the news just today.
The Americans are launching unmanned (and, for the moment, at least) unarmed drones to fly along the Manitoba border. There goes that whole concept of "the world's longest undefended border" that we were taught about in school.
And in England, the powers that be have decided that people should no longer be allowed to photograph police officers, because the photographers might be terrorist groups taking reconnaissance shots. Not only will there be a lot of disappointed tourists, but this would also mean that bad cops could assault people without the risk of exposure.
When does this stupidity stop? When are people going to stand up and say "my rights are more important than my fear"? Because until we do, the governments are going to use this excuse to do all of the things they always wanted, but were never allowed.
We have more to fear from our own governments than from some threat from the middle east.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
The Soap Opera - an endangered species?
The soap opera has been around for over 70 years, pre-dating television. Even people who have never watched one are familiar with the genre, and very likely familiar with some of the characters. Who hasn’t heard of Erica Kane?
In the early years of TV, soap operas really were sponsored by soap companies, and their earnings helped support the prime-time programming.
But times have changed. Prime-time shows are now the ones that bring in the money, and soaps have decreased drastically in recent years, both in absolute numbers and in ratings. Days of Our Lives, which has run for 44 years, recently laid off stars Deidre Hall and Drake Hogestyn (Marlena and John Black), and other shows have required their top actors to take pay cuts.
Rumours have been circulating for some time that the soap opera is about to go the way of the dodo bird, to be replaced by cheaper talk shows and “reality TV”. The audience of its heyday – stay-at-home mothers who passed their love of the show on to their daughters – is gone, and the networks’ attempts to lure new, young, viewers appears to be a failure.
And it is quite possible that they are right, that we are witnessing the end of an era. But I wonder if this recession, depression, whatever you want to call it, could actually end up saving the soaps.
Every day we hear of thousands more people losing jobs. And certainly many of them will be out looking for more work. But a number, who really don’t need to work, will decide to stay home until things get better. And, since men still earn more than women, and since women are still considered to be responsible for child care, most of those will be women.
This is not a good thing. But it may be a cloud with a silver lining for the soap opera. We could be back to a time when there are women with free time in the afternoon to watch the soaps, and to pass this on to their daughters as our mothers did.
What the networks do with this is up to them. If they fire their best actors and writers, and end up with shows no one wants to watch, it won’t matter. However, if they put together fun, interesting shows, they will have an audience just looking for a little escape and love in the afternoon.
In the early years of TV, soap operas really were sponsored by soap companies, and their earnings helped support the prime-time programming.
But times have changed. Prime-time shows are now the ones that bring in the money, and soaps have decreased drastically in recent years, both in absolute numbers and in ratings. Days of Our Lives, which has run for 44 years, recently laid off stars Deidre Hall and Drake Hogestyn (Marlena and John Black), and other shows have required their top actors to take pay cuts.
Rumours have been circulating for some time that the soap opera is about to go the way of the dodo bird, to be replaced by cheaper talk shows and “reality TV”. The audience of its heyday – stay-at-home mothers who passed their love of the show on to their daughters – is gone, and the networks’ attempts to lure new, young, viewers appears to be a failure.
And it is quite possible that they are right, that we are witnessing the end of an era. But I wonder if this recession, depression, whatever you want to call it, could actually end up saving the soaps.
Every day we hear of thousands more people losing jobs. And certainly many of them will be out looking for more work. But a number, who really don’t need to work, will decide to stay home until things get better. And, since men still earn more than women, and since women are still considered to be responsible for child care, most of those will be women.
This is not a good thing. But it may be a cloud with a silver lining for the soap opera. We could be back to a time when there are women with free time in the afternoon to watch the soaps, and to pass this on to their daughters as our mothers did.
What the networks do with this is up to them. If they fire their best actors and writers, and end up with shows no one wants to watch, it won’t matter. However, if they put together fun, interesting shows, they will have an audience just looking for a little escape and love in the afternoon.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
NAFTA and "Buy American"
I am having mixed feelings about Obama’s “Buy American” program. I can understand why people support it, and if I were an American, I would quite possibly feel the same way. In the short term, at least, it will likely be good for them, although the international anger they are courting will probably come back to haunt them in the long run.
I guess what I find most irritating, other than the obvious fact that Canadians will lose jobs, is the NAFTA issue. I was never a fan of the North American Free Trade Act, but we signed it, and so did the Americans. And I haven’t heard that they have any specific plans to back out of it. And under NAFTA they can’t “buy American” – all NAFTA countries have to be given the same treatment.
We are constantly told here that Canada cannot keep our oil for ourselves, even if we need it. We have to sell much of it to the U.S. under NAFTA rules. The Mexican economy has been devastated by NAFTA. Yet apparently the United States doesn’t even take into account the fact that, under NAFTA, the whole Buy American program is simply not allowed.
I am not sure what I would think without NAFTA. Certainly a large amount of our trade is with the U.S., but keeping things closer to home uses less fuel and decreases pollution. And we are going to have to become less of a consumer society in the future – the earth simply can’t support the strain we have been putting on it. And, of course, protectionism goes both ways – we really could use that Alberta oil.
But I am royally sick of the Americans imposing rules on everyone else, and believing that they don’t have to follow them. I was hoping that had ended with Bush, but I think it is bigger than one government. Maybe they should replace the American Eagle with something more appropriate – an American Ego.
I guess what I find most irritating, other than the obvious fact that Canadians will lose jobs, is the NAFTA issue. I was never a fan of the North American Free Trade Act, but we signed it, and so did the Americans. And I haven’t heard that they have any specific plans to back out of it. And under NAFTA they can’t “buy American” – all NAFTA countries have to be given the same treatment.
We are constantly told here that Canada cannot keep our oil for ourselves, even if we need it. We have to sell much of it to the U.S. under NAFTA rules. The Mexican economy has been devastated by NAFTA. Yet apparently the United States doesn’t even take into account the fact that, under NAFTA, the whole Buy American program is simply not allowed.
I am not sure what I would think without NAFTA. Certainly a large amount of our trade is with the U.S., but keeping things closer to home uses less fuel and decreases pollution. And we are going to have to become less of a consumer society in the future – the earth simply can’t support the strain we have been putting on it. And, of course, protectionism goes both ways – we really could use that Alberta oil.
But I am royally sick of the Americans imposing rules on everyone else, and believing that they don’t have to follow them. I was hoping that had ended with Bush, but I think it is bigger than one government. Maybe they should replace the American Eagle with something more appropriate – an American Ego.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
The coalition is dead, long live the coalition
The news today is full of the “death of the coalition”. Don’t believe it. The coalition hasn’t died at all, it has just changed members: Michael Ignatieff, who never felt comfortable with those left-wing types, chose to climb into bed with Stephen Harper instead.
Ignatieff himself points out many of the flaws in the new Conservative budget: it does not protect the unemployed; there is nothing to encourage conservation and the protection of our planet; it actually discourages pay equity for women and does not contain a plan for getting us out of deficit when things improve. I would add that it depends on provincial and city governments for some of its numbers, as well as increases that were scheduled for 2009 anyway.
Ignatieff was in an extremely powerful position. Both the NDP and the Bloc had come out against the budget. He could bring down the government with one vote. He could have used that power to demand concessions, to require that the Tories fix the flaws, or go down to ignominious defeat. So what did he say? “Okay, but we’ll be watching you.”
The government, he says, is on probation. Isn’t any minority government, all the time? And it would appear that they don’t have much to worry about. Iggy has shown his true colours, and they are Tory blue.
I feel tired and frustrated today. I was hoping that – for once – what the majority of the people wanted would actually matter. 62% of us voted against the Conservatives. We don’t want them in charge, and we don’t agree with their ideals. But apparently that doesn’t matter in this “democracy”. No wonder our last election had the lowest turn-out ever.
Obviously our system needs changes. I don’t know what the answer is right now, but the status quo clearly isn’t working.
Ignatieff himself points out many of the flaws in the new Conservative budget: it does not protect the unemployed; there is nothing to encourage conservation and the protection of our planet; it actually discourages pay equity for women and does not contain a plan for getting us out of deficit when things improve. I would add that it depends on provincial and city governments for some of its numbers, as well as increases that were scheduled for 2009 anyway.
Ignatieff was in an extremely powerful position. Both the NDP and the Bloc had come out against the budget. He could bring down the government with one vote. He could have used that power to demand concessions, to require that the Tories fix the flaws, or go down to ignominious defeat. So what did he say? “Okay, but we’ll be watching you.”
The government, he says, is on probation. Isn’t any minority government, all the time? And it would appear that they don’t have much to worry about. Iggy has shown his true colours, and they are Tory blue.
I feel tired and frustrated today. I was hoping that – for once – what the majority of the people wanted would actually matter. 62% of us voted against the Conservatives. We don’t want them in charge, and we don’t agree with their ideals. But apparently that doesn’t matter in this “democracy”. No wonder our last election had the lowest turn-out ever.
Obviously our system needs changes. I don’t know what the answer is right now, but the status quo clearly isn’t working.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Nothing to salute
Ottawa was too cold today for the 21-gun salute that traditionally opens Parliament. I’m not sure if that means anything or not. The Speech from the Throne lasted 8 minutes, and promised us "a difficult year — perhaps a several difficult years." Maybe there was nothing to salute.
For a government that is normally tight-lipped, they have been leaking like a sieve about this new budget. It sounds like they are planning to use the worst financial crisis in years as an opportunity to cut taxes. Big surprise. Apparently they haven’t figured out that when you are forced to run a deficit that is not the time to cut taxes.
I realized the other day that with all this talk of tax cuts, helping the middle class, yadda, yadda, I have absolutely no expectation that things will improve for me. Harper will help his friends because he wants to, and some of the very poor because he has to if he doesn’t want to be replaced, but the ones in the middle will get stuck paying for it.
Jack Layton is already planning to vote against the budget, because it is a Confidence vote, and he has no confidence in the government. That doesn’t seem quite fair, but I do understand. He obviously has the same feeling that I do.
Of course, the budget can, and likely will, go through without him. And Harper will smile that nasty smile of his, and go on playing President a while longer.
I still think a coalition would be a good idea. There would have to be talk and agreement and actual compromise. The politicians would all learn a lot.
For a government that is normally tight-lipped, they have been leaking like a sieve about this new budget. It sounds like they are planning to use the worst financial crisis in years as an opportunity to cut taxes. Big surprise. Apparently they haven’t figured out that when you are forced to run a deficit that is not the time to cut taxes.
I realized the other day that with all this talk of tax cuts, helping the middle class, yadda, yadda, I have absolutely no expectation that things will improve for me. Harper will help his friends because he wants to, and some of the very poor because he has to if he doesn’t want to be replaced, but the ones in the middle will get stuck paying for it.
Jack Layton is already planning to vote against the budget, because it is a Confidence vote, and he has no confidence in the government. That doesn’t seem quite fair, but I do understand. He obviously has the same feeling that I do.
Of course, the budget can, and likely will, go through without him. And Harper will smile that nasty smile of his, and go on playing President a while longer.
I still think a coalition would be a good idea. There would have to be talk and agreement and actual compromise. The politicians would all learn a lot.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Who would have thought?
Who would have thought, eight years ago, that in 2009 we would be happy and relieved to hear that the United States is eliminating torture, returning to the use of habeas corpus and allowing scientists to present their results freely?
While I am thrilled that Obama is stepping in and making necessary changes so quickly, the fact that they need to be made at all is a frightening reminder of just how close the Americans came to a fascist dictatorship.
Until shortly before the election, in fact, there were those who were convinced that Bush would find some method – a terrorist attack, a war with Iran – to prevent it, and remain in power. Possibly the economic crash prevented just that – we will never know.
But finally there is an intelligent, reasonable man in charge; a man with his hand on “the button” who can at least pronounce “nuclear”. And he is wasting no time in undoing some of the previous regime’s worst deeds. Guantanamo is to be closed, torture outlawed. He has hired real scientists to advise him.
And since this has been done in only a couple of days, it makes me hopeful that there will be continued improvements. An end to illegal wars would be nice, and to spying on people without just cause and a warrant. I would even like to see them turn “Customs and Border Security” (scary) back into “Customs and Immigration” (friendly), as it used to be.
Undoing eight years of Bush rule is not going to be easy, but Obama has already made a good start. Bush took a country that had the love and sympathy of the world on September 11, 2001, and made it a pariah. Hopefully Barack Obama will be able to undo at least some of that, and turn our neighbour back into a friend.
While I am thrilled that Obama is stepping in and making necessary changes so quickly, the fact that they need to be made at all is a frightening reminder of just how close the Americans came to a fascist dictatorship.
Until shortly before the election, in fact, there were those who were convinced that Bush would find some method – a terrorist attack, a war with Iran – to prevent it, and remain in power. Possibly the economic crash prevented just that – we will never know.
But finally there is an intelligent, reasonable man in charge; a man with his hand on “the button” who can at least pronounce “nuclear”. And he is wasting no time in undoing some of the previous regime’s worst deeds. Guantanamo is to be closed, torture outlawed. He has hired real scientists to advise him.
And since this has been done in only a couple of days, it makes me hopeful that there will be continued improvements. An end to illegal wars would be nice, and to spying on people without just cause and a warrant. I would even like to see them turn “Customs and Border Security” (scary) back into “Customs and Immigration” (friendly), as it used to be.
Undoing eight years of Bush rule is not going to be easy, but Obama has already made a good start. Bush took a country that had the love and sympathy of the world on September 11, 2001, and made it a pariah. Hopefully Barack Obama will be able to undo at least some of that, and turn our neighbour back into a friend.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Half want Harper out
According to an EKOS poll conducted January 15 – 17, a full 50% of Canadians would prefer a coalition government led by Michael Ignatieff over the current Harper Tory rule (43%).
This is particularly interesting given that Iggy himself has not shown any great love for the coalition, though he has agreed to vote against the upcoming budget if it is not what he thinks Canadians want.
While Stephen Harper, with his disrespect for the Parliamentary system and his palpable disinterest in the economic woes of the average citizen, carries much of the responsibility for the desire for change, I suspect that some of it lies with our neighbour to the south.
Harper and George W. Bush got along well (who can forget "my buddy Steve"?), with shared right-wing views. A new, Democratic, government in the U.S. is less likely to work well with the Conservatives. And, since the Americans are our major trading partners, that is a serious consideration.
A coalition headed by Michael Ignatieff could be very beneficial at this time, and apparently the majority of the people see that.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely to come to pass. Harper is not a fool, and will almost certainly put forward a budget, when Parliament resumes, that will win reluctant acceptance. But always keep in mind, Harper: most of us want you gone.
This is particularly interesting given that Iggy himself has not shown any great love for the coalition, though he has agreed to vote against the upcoming budget if it is not what he thinks Canadians want.
While Stephen Harper, with his disrespect for the Parliamentary system and his palpable disinterest in the economic woes of the average citizen, carries much of the responsibility for the desire for change, I suspect that some of it lies with our neighbour to the south.
Harper and George W. Bush got along well (who can forget "my buddy Steve"?), with shared right-wing views. A new, Democratic, government in the U.S. is less likely to work well with the Conservatives. And, since the Americans are our major trading partners, that is a serious consideration.
A coalition headed by Michael Ignatieff could be very beneficial at this time, and apparently the majority of the people see that.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely to come to pass. Harper is not a fool, and will almost certainly put forward a budget, when Parliament resumes, that will win reluctant acceptance. But always keep in mind, Harper: most of us want you gone.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Canada and Obama
According to several polls done for his inauguration, the majority of Canadians say that they like Barack Obama, but, well, they don’t really trust him.
I can understand those feelings, and share them. While Obama will be a relief for the entire world (except maybe the Bush family) after the last eight years, I fear that those who expect him to solve all of the problems from which we currently suffer will be badly disappointed.
He plans to get out of Iraq, he says, but will then send the troops to the “good war” in Afghanistan. Good war? That would be the one Canadians are dying in, and we are planning to leave (for sure) in 2011. We don’t need the Americans painting it as the good war. (What does that mean, anyway?)
One of his promises was to review NAFTA. Well, all three countries involved in NAFTA dislike it, so that may not be bad. But the economy is not in a good place, and you can bet that the Americans will be looking out for themselves.
Ah, the economy. Bush’s neo-conservatives brought it down; can Obama put it back on its feet? As with Humpty Dumpty, it is much easier to destroy an economy than it is to put it back together. Even a new president with the best possible plan will not find it a simple task to undo the damage that has been done. A recession is unavoidable, with only the length and degree in question. Hopefully he will start from the bottom, with the workers, and build up, rather than start at the top and hope things will "trickle down" as they have failed to do for some time now, but at this point we will not recover without pain.
Will the U.S. become less paranoid under Obama? That is also not likely to happen quickly. "Homeland Security", border walls, lists of people not allowed on planes, all of these developed fairly rapidly, but even if Obama believes them to be unnecessary, it would be political suicide to remove them the same way.
Neither the United States, nor the world around, should expect miracles. Canadians are right to like Obama without expecting too much out of him. But a little is better than nothing, slow improvement better than continued collapse. Hopefully the Obama government is at least the first step in the right direction.
I can understand those feelings, and share them. While Obama will be a relief for the entire world (except maybe the Bush family) after the last eight years, I fear that those who expect him to solve all of the problems from which we currently suffer will be badly disappointed.
He plans to get out of Iraq, he says, but will then send the troops to the “good war” in Afghanistan. Good war? That would be the one Canadians are dying in, and we are planning to leave (for sure) in 2011. We don’t need the Americans painting it as the good war. (What does that mean, anyway?)
One of his promises was to review NAFTA. Well, all three countries involved in NAFTA dislike it, so that may not be bad. But the economy is not in a good place, and you can bet that the Americans will be looking out for themselves.
Ah, the economy. Bush’s neo-conservatives brought it down; can Obama put it back on its feet? As with Humpty Dumpty, it is much easier to destroy an economy than it is to put it back together. Even a new president with the best possible plan will not find it a simple task to undo the damage that has been done. A recession is unavoidable, with only the length and degree in question. Hopefully he will start from the bottom, with the workers, and build up, rather than start at the top and hope things will "trickle down" as they have failed to do for some time now, but at this point we will not recover without pain.
Will the U.S. become less paranoid under Obama? That is also not likely to happen quickly. "Homeland Security", border walls, lists of people not allowed on planes, all of these developed fairly rapidly, but even if Obama believes them to be unnecessary, it would be political suicide to remove them the same way.
Neither the United States, nor the world around, should expect miracles. Canadians are right to like Obama without expecting too much out of him. But a little is better than nothing, slow improvement better than continued collapse. Hopefully the Obama government is at least the first step in the right direction.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Canadian Shame
Stephen Harper has done something no other Prime Minister, not even Mulroney, has been able to accomplish: make me ashamed of my country.
I was raised to be proud of Canada, and that was never very hard to do. It has been a peaceful, helpful country, respectful of the human rights of others and respected internationally.
Then Harper’s Conservatives, probably the most fanatically right-wing group to ever lead the country, managed to squeak into power. And I see headlines like the one today: “Canada votes alone for Israel” (Toronto Star). Yep. Out of 47 countries represented on a UN human rights council, Canada was the only one to oppose a motion condemning the attack on Gaza. Makes you feel proud, doesn’t it? In a hide-your-head-in-shame kind of way.
And just in case I thought I could lift my head in time for the next election, Michael Ignatieff, Liberal leader and pseudo-American, agrees with Harper.
I don’t care what Harper and his cronies say when speaking for themselves, but when I hear “Canada says … “ and it is something totally antithetical to my views (the whole peaceful, respectful of human rights thing), I start having problems. I am part of Canada. I don’t say it is okay to massacre children, thank you very much.
I’m waiting to hear from the rest of the country.
I was raised to be proud of Canada, and that was never very hard to do. It has been a peaceful, helpful country, respectful of the human rights of others and respected internationally.
Then Harper’s Conservatives, probably the most fanatically right-wing group to ever lead the country, managed to squeak into power. And I see headlines like the one today: “Canada votes alone for Israel” (Toronto Star). Yep. Out of 47 countries represented on a UN human rights council, Canada was the only one to oppose a motion condemning the attack on Gaza. Makes you feel proud, doesn’t it? In a hide-your-head-in-shame kind of way.
And just in case I thought I could lift my head in time for the next election, Michael Ignatieff, Liberal leader and pseudo-American, agrees with Harper.
I don’t care what Harper and his cronies say when speaking for themselves, but when I hear “Canada says … “ and it is something totally antithetical to my views (the whole peaceful, respectful of human rights thing), I start having problems. I am part of Canada. I don’t say it is okay to massacre children, thank you very much.
I’m waiting to hear from the rest of the country.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Arrests in Bountiful
Some arrests were finally made for polygamy this week in the B.C. community of Bountiful. Personally, I don’t have especially strong feelings either way about polygamous marriages between consenting adults (more on that later), but I was happy to see the arrests.
There has been a law on the books for over 150 years in Canada stating that polygamy is a crime. Yet it has been going on, quite openly, with nothing being done. This makes a mockery of our justice system. We need to either enforce the law, or decide that it is wrong and take it off the books. The time has finally come to do one or the other.
The two men arrested are planning to fight the law, not the charges. However, I believe that their decision to fight it on the grounds of religious freedom is a poor one. If something is really wrong – rape, murder, theft, assault – then it should not be allowed to some on the grounds of religious freedom. And if it is not wrong, then we should not be spending time and money chasing down perpetrators.
Which brings me back to the “consenting adults” issue. No matter the outcome of the polygamy trial, the fact that some of the wives were reportedly under the age of consent, and thus the victims of statutory rape, at the time of the marriages, is a separate issue. If this is the case, the men should be convicted of this, with no “religion” excuses.
Freedom of religion in our country means that a person cannot be refused a job or persecuted in some other way because he is of a “different” religion. It does not give someone freedom to commit a crime in the name of his god.
There has been a law on the books for over 150 years in Canada stating that polygamy is a crime. Yet it has been going on, quite openly, with nothing being done. This makes a mockery of our justice system. We need to either enforce the law, or decide that it is wrong and take it off the books. The time has finally come to do one or the other.
The two men arrested are planning to fight the law, not the charges. However, I believe that their decision to fight it on the grounds of religious freedom is a poor one. If something is really wrong – rape, murder, theft, assault – then it should not be allowed to some on the grounds of religious freedom. And if it is not wrong, then we should not be spending time and money chasing down perpetrators.
Which brings me back to the “consenting adults” issue. No matter the outcome of the polygamy trial, the fact that some of the wives were reportedly under the age of consent, and thus the victims of statutory rape, at the time of the marriages, is a separate issue. If this is the case, the men should be convicted of this, with no “religion” excuses.
Freedom of religion in our country means that a person cannot be refused a job or persecuted in some other way because he is of a “different” religion. It does not give someone freedom to commit a crime in the name of his god.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Peter Kent and Israel
A couple of elections ago “celebrity” candidate Peter Kent ran in my riding of St. Paul’s, where he was easily defeated. I have rarely been happier to be able to say I did not vote for someone. The man almost made me lose my breakfast on the subway this morning.
The ridiculous title in this morning’s Toronto Star tells the story: “Israelis hit school, Ottawa blames Hamas”. Kent, who is now the minister of state for foreign affairs, is quoted as saying "Hamas bears a terrible responsibility for this and for the wider deepening humanitarian tragedy. The burden of responsibility is on Hamas to stop its terrorist rocketing of Israel."
Let me spell it out for you, Peter, since you are obviously too dim to figure it out for yourself: Israel bombed a school and murdered 42 innocent people. Israel is responsible for this. Israel has now murdered over 500 people since they broke the truce between the two peoples.
Hamas sending rockets into Israel, which usually hit nothing, is bad. They create fear, and there is always the possibility that someone may be killed. This fades, however, in comparison to the slaughter of Palestinians by the Israeli army.
And guns and rockets are not the only weapons Israel is using against the civilians of Gaza. Those who die from lack of proper food, sanitation, medical supplies and electricity don’t even make the casualty list.
Israel appears to want a ceasefire that returns to the status quo ante, minus the rockets. That is not going to happen. People like Mr. Kent seem so willing to wear the shoes of the Israelis, subjected to rocket attacks, while ignoring the fact that the Palestinians are refugees in their own land, most of them unemployed and dependent on aid, surrounded by Israeli security guards with settlements and fences blocking off more and more of the land that they do have.
Until the inhabitants of Gaza are treated with the minimum of respect due all human beings, they will fight for that. It will be a losing battle against the large Israeli army, supported by the Americans, but they feel they have little choice.
Tell me, Mr. Kent, if your family were trapped and starving in Gaza, what would you do?
The ridiculous title in this morning’s Toronto Star tells the story: “Israelis hit school, Ottawa blames Hamas”. Kent, who is now the minister of state for foreign affairs, is quoted as saying "Hamas bears a terrible responsibility for this and for the wider deepening humanitarian tragedy. The burden of responsibility is on Hamas to stop its terrorist rocketing of Israel."
Let me spell it out for you, Peter, since you are obviously too dim to figure it out for yourself: Israel bombed a school and murdered 42 innocent people. Israel is responsible for this. Israel has now murdered over 500 people since they broke the truce between the two peoples.
Hamas sending rockets into Israel, which usually hit nothing, is bad. They create fear, and there is always the possibility that someone may be killed. This fades, however, in comparison to the slaughter of Palestinians by the Israeli army.
And guns and rockets are not the only weapons Israel is using against the civilians of Gaza. Those who die from lack of proper food, sanitation, medical supplies and electricity don’t even make the casualty list.
Israel appears to want a ceasefire that returns to the status quo ante, minus the rockets. That is not going to happen. People like Mr. Kent seem so willing to wear the shoes of the Israelis, subjected to rocket attacks, while ignoring the fact that the Palestinians are refugees in their own land, most of them unemployed and dependent on aid, surrounded by Israeli security guards with settlements and fences blocking off more and more of the land that they do have.
Until the inhabitants of Gaza are treated with the minimum of respect due all human beings, they will fight for that. It will be a losing battle against the large Israeli army, supported by the Americans, but they feel they have little choice.
Tell me, Mr. Kent, if your family were trapped and starving in Gaza, what would you do?
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Hypocrisy and hate
Americans can be very interesting people. They are, reasonably enough, completely, totally and absolutely against terrorism. Unless, that is, the terrorism is against a country they don’t like (such as Cuba), in which case they may let the terrorists (Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles) live in their country under government protection.
They are also very firmly in support of democracy; so much so that they have been willing to impose it by force. So when the Palestinians democratically elected Hamas to represent them, one would assume that the U.S. would applaud the success of a fair and free election. Not exactly.
In fact, it seems there is only one thing that the United States does stand completely behind under all circumstances, and that is Israel.
The position of the United States in the current Israeli attack on Gaza is so bizarre that it would almost be funny if we were not talking about people’s lives. On being informed of the Israeli attacks that have taken over 400 Palestinian lives, Condoleeza Rice came out with the following statement: "We are deeply concerned about the escalating violence. We strongly condemn the attacks on Israel and hold Hamas responsible." George W. Bush had similar remarks. Are they watching the same news stories I am?
It is little wonder that the Arabs link the Americans so closely with the Isrealis – the Americans do it themselves. Not to mention the fact that it is American money and weapons that keep tiny Israel going in the first place. And an American veto that stops the United Nations from so much as calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.
Yes, Israel is responsible for this attack on Gaza. In no way am I “letting them off the hook”. However, if not for their powerful friends, the will of not only the Palestinians but the rest of the world would have a great effect in stopping them. That cannot happen as long as they have the unmitigated support of the United States.
If the Americans want to know “why they hate us”, they should take a close look at their position in this massacre.
NOTE: I understand that the position of a government does not represent the will of all individuals in a country. My use of “the United States” and "Israel" in this article refers to the governments of the countries.
They are also very firmly in support of democracy; so much so that they have been willing to impose it by force. So when the Palestinians democratically elected Hamas to represent them, one would assume that the U.S. would applaud the success of a fair and free election. Not exactly.
In fact, it seems there is only one thing that the United States does stand completely behind under all circumstances, and that is Israel.
The position of the United States in the current Israeli attack on Gaza is so bizarre that it would almost be funny if we were not talking about people’s lives. On being informed of the Israeli attacks that have taken over 400 Palestinian lives, Condoleeza Rice came out with the following statement: "We are deeply concerned about the escalating violence. We strongly condemn the attacks on Israel and hold Hamas responsible." George W. Bush had similar remarks. Are they watching the same news stories I am?
It is little wonder that the Arabs link the Americans so closely with the Isrealis – the Americans do it themselves. Not to mention the fact that it is American money and weapons that keep tiny Israel going in the first place. And an American veto that stops the United Nations from so much as calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.
Yes, Israel is responsible for this attack on Gaza. In no way am I “letting them off the hook”. However, if not for their powerful friends, the will of not only the Palestinians but the rest of the world would have a great effect in stopping them. That cannot happen as long as they have the unmitigated support of the United States.
If the Americans want to know “why they hate us”, they should take a close look at their position in this massacre.
NOTE: I understand that the position of a government does not represent the will of all individuals in a country. My use of “the United States” and "Israel" in this article refers to the governments of the countries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
