Quebeckers Not A Nation

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

We Quebeckers do not constitute a nation, and the sooner the separatists here understand that, the better.

French Canadians are one of Canada's two founding peoples, it's true. But so are the British Canadians, and they're not a nation either! If the the "ethnic" argument for Quebeckers being a nation were true, then British Canadian Anglos would also be a nation. They're not, however, and this prove that the ethnic origin argument is nonsense.

Quebec is part of Canada, and Quebeckers are part of the Canadian nation.


Consider our free newsletter. It's sent out twice a month.

Related articles are archived in the topical categories federal politics, separatism, Quebec, national security.

posted by lecentre @ 2:05 PM 3 comments links to this post

Interview: Green Party Leadership Candidate May - Conclusion Segment

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

Here's the final part of my interview with Elizabeth May, a candidate in the Green Party of Canada's leadership race. If this appeals to you, consider our free newsletter. It's sent out twice a month.

This is part 7 of my interview with Elizabeth May, the interview's concluding segment, which covers the Green leadership candidate's views on Health (in addition to what was published yesterday), and various miscellaneous questions.

Health

d) Much of our current health care focuses on treating illness. How do we shift emphasis to prevention?

Improve the quality of food eaten by Canadians by supporting local organic agriculture. Label food to warn of GMO contamination. Educate Canadians to avoid pre-packaged foods and restaurant meals. Emphasize the ecological, spiritual, educational and community values embedded in a home cooked meal.

Ban or severely restrict any chemicals shown to promote or cause cancer, birth defects, immune-suppression, neurotoxicity.

e) A think tank recently published an article suggesting that if we better managed waiting lines, we could solve our wait-times problem. Health care traffic lights and turnstiles, as it were. What is causing the wait-time crisis? How would you solve the problem?

It is a management issue. Get the back-log dealt with, increase the number of hospital beds (noting that 20% of all hospital beds in Canada were shut down in 1994-5), and stay on top of the issue to avoid backlog.

f)To what extent do you consider over-consumption responsible for obesity? Will the Green Party, under your leadership, make this a priority? (why)

As above in d. It is not just that Canadians eat too much food; it is that we eat the wrong kinds of food -- over-packaged, cheap calories, impoverished of nutritional value. We do not eat enough fruit and vegetables in our diet. We also need to walk and bike more, and drive less, watch less television and spend less time on video games and other sedentary activities...

g) GMOs (Genetically modified organisms) have been touted as being the way to feed the starving people in many countries, since GMOs can produce more crops than non-GMOs. What do you think of that? What are the bioethical implications? Now, what are the policy implications?

Oxfam, Christian Aid and many other groups devoted to alleviating poverty have thoroughly debunked the notion that GMOs "help" the poor. GMOs are produced at huge research costs by companies like Monsanto without a single altruistic motivation. The GMO industry requires full control of seeds, and would ban traditional practices of seed saving. GMOS are about as much to do with helping the poor as a gambling casino does with low income housing.
[Editor's note: Monsanto is a company that sells seeds for crops that don't regenerate or generate seeds, so that farmers need to buy seeds year after year. This is what may is referring to in regards to seed saving. My question was more interested in the massive fruits that were the next big thing to feed more people, but I suppose that isn't where development is going.]

h) (Contest participant question) Do you believe a product should have to be proven safe before being introduced, even if it has met all other government regulations on that product?

No government regulations in any area require proof of safety. The burden of proof to demonstrate a reasonable level of confidence that a new product does not carry unacceptable risks must shift to the proponent/manufacturer, with regulators applying the precautionary principle prior to regulating for use.

Miscellaneous:

How is it you see such big differrences between the CPC and the old PC party?
I've read that Harper's being mentored by Mulroney as it happens.

The differences are enormous. Ask Flora MacDonald or Joe Clark why they are not members of the Harper Conservatives. Mulroney is clearly attempting to help Harper. Nevertheless, Harper completely ignored Mulroney’s clear message to Harper in his Earth Day Gala speech (April 20,2006) that climate change is a real and current threat, "second only to global nuclear war."

[Editor's note: Global nuclear war with who? Al-Qaeda's destroyed camps? The URSS?]

The old Progressive Conservative Party shared key values with Canadians that the Alliance take-over version does not.

Kyoto question (not originally in interview, but correspondence May thought was important):
Since our emissions are up over 25% since Kyoto's ratification, what difference does it make if we stick to it or not? The Americans dropped it and have reduced their emissions!


Actually US emissions have risen by more than one billion tonnes since 1990. Contrary to Harper myth-making, they have not reduced at all. The myth is based on distorting the fact that emissions in the US are up by 16% (which is enormous when one considers that the US is the world's largest polluter, producing 25% of global greenhouse gases), while Canada (with three per cent of world emissions in 1990) has increased by about 24.9%. The escalation in emissions in Canada is primarily due to the boom in the Athabasca tar sands.

Canada can still reach its Kyoto target. Nearly every other Annex 1 country under Kyoto is confident of reaching targets and many have already well over-shot that goal.
Kyoto matters (even if we try to reach our target and fall short) because it is the world's only hope of finding a global solution to a global problem. Negotiations are underway now, having been launched in December 2005 at the UN Climate Conference in Montreal for a second commitment period to begin as soon as the first one (2008-2012) is concluded. Without global action to bring down emissions sharply, on the order of 30% below 1990 levels by 2020, humanity could face unmanageable levels of climate chaos through increasing storms, sea level rise and weather of mass destruction. This is the real global security threat.

[Editor's note: I made a mistake here; as May notes, the US increased emissions. However, they increased less than we did, which was the result of specific efforts. Oh, and it isn't Harper or the CPC that convinced me of that, it's the mediocre mainstream media (when will I ever learn?).]

Related articles are archived in the topical categories federal politics, health, Green Party of Canada, interview, environment.

posted by lecentre @ 3:42 PM 2 comments links to this post

Interview with Green Leadership Candidate May - 6

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

Here is the 6th part of my interview with Green Party of Canada leadership candidate Elizabeth May. This segment of the interview with the media-darling Green includes the end of our foreign affairs discussion, as well as the first part of May's views on health.

Foreign Affairs


i) Is there an environmental aspect to giving aid to poor countries? Is there an interest for Canada to, as Bono suggested to Paul Martin, devote 0.7% of GDP to foreign aid?

Clearly, yes. As determined by the Rio Earth Summit, based on the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (The Brundtland Commission, 1987) there can be no sustainability in situations of massive inequity. Twenty per cent of the world's population (those of us in industrialized countries) consume 80% of the world's resources.

The target of 0.7% of GDP to ODA is not Bono's idea. It was former Prime Minister Lester Pearson's idea, and every Prime Minister since, up to Paul Martin, has endorsed it. In fact, the last Progressive Conservative Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, recommitted Canada to it very publicly at the Earth Summit in June 1992. At the time of the Earth Summit, Canadian aid was 0.45% of GDP. With Chretien's cuts to ODA it dropped to 0.25% and has since been inching up to recover ground. It is not yet back to the 1992 levels.

Many other donor nations are committed to it and refer to it as the Pearson target.



j) Can you share your views on economic globalization?


No global green world view could insist any country is an island, so an international perspective is critical. However, economic globalization is different from internationalism. If by economic globalization, the question assumes the following general characteristic of the now-discredited model of globalization – privatization, de-regulation and increased corporate rule – I would be sharply critical. If one means by economic globalization continuing trade, then the question shifts to how can one ensure the sustainability of trade? Can all trade be made fair? How can the local be favoured, for sound environmental reasons, without standing accused of protectionism?

The European Union model provides a very different model than that of NAFTA. It is worth examining and studying these issues so that Canadians know that not all trade agreements are created equal. [Editor's note: An analysis I wrote with partners for a recent economic class found that the EU's central bank was the source of many problems for Germany's economy. Nevertheless, I agree with May's point about continuing to trade, while ensuring that trade is fair.]

10) Health


a) What is the relationship between health and the environment? What factors influence that relationship?

I have taught at the undergraduate and masters level at Dalhousie University in the subject of Health and the Environment, as the first Chairholder of the Chair in my name at Dalhousie. This is (I apologize) a very long answer for which I only have room for a brief reply. [Ed's note: I don't know what a long answer with only room for a brief reply means, either. My guess is that May meant it's a complex issue that she couldn't answer fully, given time constraints.]

The relationship between human health and the environment is an intimate one. The current epidemic levels in Canada of childhood asthma, childhood cancers, adult cancers, immunological deficiencies and neurological deficits (premature aging of adults in early dementia in adults and increased levels of ADD, retardation and autism in children) are all very likely impacts of our toxicified world.

In developing countries, over 55,000 children under 5 years old die every day from water pollution related illness.
[Ed's note: I told you she has a wealth of knowledge! How many of you knew that? I certainly didn't.]

b) What are the Green Party's priorities in the health portfolio? What can be legislated (that would be enforceable) to pursue these priorities?


The 2006 Green Party Platform was very strong on identifying the need for prevention of illness by removing dangerous chemicals from our environment. In my view, the platform needed work to ensure a clear Green commitment to protect the legacy of Tommy Douglas in maintaining a public universal health care system. We must push back against the creeping threat of privatization.


c) Specifically, describe your opinions on the environmental causes for disease, and cancer in particular?

Cancer rates continue to climb, even though for many forms of cancer treatment and early detection improve. As Dave Renauld of CAW in Oshawa puts it, "the war against cancer is the only war where we have never engaged the enemy, and the enemy is carcinogens."

And that's part 6 of our interview with Green Party leadership candidate Elizabeth May. Tomorrow: Health and miscellanea conclude our interview. Questions partly came from a contest we held. Previously, we published interview segments on leadership, the economy, and foreign affairs.

If you want to follow our coverage of the Green Party's leadership race, consider our free newsletter. It's sent out twice a month.
Here are some related articles:

Creative Taxing Can Save the Environment
The Tangled Bank Science Carnival
Foreign-Affairs-Media Criticism and Interview

Related articles are archived in the topical categories federal politics, foreign affairs, health, Green Party of Canada, interview, leadership.

posted by lecentre @ 4:20 PM 0 comments links to this post

Elizabeth May On Foreign Affairs - Interview with a Green Leadership Candidate Continued

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

Fellow Centrerion Ilya and I were discussing the foreign affairs section of my interview with Green Party of Canada leadership candidate Elizabeth May. In it, the otherwise knowledgeable, articulate Green offered some naive, simplistic and on the whole dissapointing comments that betrayed a poor vision of foreign affairs.

Besides having nothing practical to say about what could be done with regards to Iran's nuclear development program, May made a pretty uninformed comment on the foundation of the state of Israel. "The State of Israel was created following a Zionist terror campaign," said May. The statement really bothered me, for a number of reasons, and so I've decided to give it its proper context. That is what Ilya and I discussed (some of what follows are my comments/ideas, some are his).

First, a distinction needs to be drawn between terorrism and guerilla fighting, and Israel's founders definitely are part of the second classification. To begin with, they did not intentionally target civilians for murder. The example that is always cited to "prove" that there was a terror campaign is the bombing of the King David hotel. The King David was British Military HQ! Furthermore, British military officials were warned ahead of time that the guerrillas intended to bomb the building so that they could evacuate. By comparison, surrounding buildings were empty of people when the bomb went off because they were warned too. (I'm citing from my Jewish History class in high school, and will supply proof upon request.)

But my problem with May's statement (not with May herself, whom I respect) is more than just that. Her use of the phrase "terror campaign" is disingenuous because it is a vast oversimplification. It suggests something comparable to the terrorism we are aware of in modern times, which is not at all the case (and, as noted above, it wasn't terrorism at any rate).

Furthermore, May's simplistic, contextless statement insults the intelligence of Green Party members, in the same was as her comments during the debate equated Harper to Bush and the Republicans with the Conservative Party of Canada. Using juvenile crowd pleasing slogans is no way to convince people that one is ready to become a party leader. Rather, such slogans are more appropriate for someone looking to lead a mob!

The contrast between the statement and what I perceive as May's intelligent nature is a big part of what bothered me. I suggest to you, dear readers, that you also go see part one of this interview, for further commentary on May, her character and on the interview itself. Now, with that off my chest, I present to you part 5 of my interview with Green Party leadership candidate Elizabeth May.


d) The Parliamentary Alliance to Save Darfur has stated that hundreds of thousands of people have been killed in that province of Sudan. Experts have said that what's going on is genocide. Do you support a Canadian military intervention there? If so, what should our military be doing there? If not, how do you propose Canada's government act to fulfill its moral duty there?

Darfur is a case of genocide in the making with horse riding warriors descending on innocent civilians. Canadian peace keepers should be there to protect the "displaced persons," essentially refugees within their own nation. We should participate under the flag of the United Nations. [Editor's note: We're in definite agreement on Darfur, at least. However, I think we need to go in regardless of whether the dithering UN wants to; Arab and Muslim dictators control so many votes there it's unlikely the UN will ever send troops.]

e) Should Canadian troops stay in Afghanistan until the country is at peace and not at risk from the Taliban and/or al-Qaeda? How else can we contribute?

Our peace-keeping mission in Afghanistan has morphed into a "war against terrorism" under Stephen Harper. We should not have become engaged in a NATO action in the first place, but should have insisted on a UN led effort. Now, we have placed young, brave and idealistic Canadians at risk. We have left them as "peacekeepers" in a territory under US military command and during which shelling has killed civilians with whom Canadian troops were trying to build trust. Now, the Harper government has committed Canada to another two years with no assurance that the mission is not a war.

Peace keeping forces should be in Afghanistan to disarm both the Taliban and the non-Taliban war lords. The opium trade should be shut down with adequate funding and programmes to ensure a transition to non-illegal harvests. [Editor's note: One of the rare things I agreed with in this section of the interview. I.e. Disarming and ending the opium trade. Our soldiers train to be put in harm's way, it's part of the job. This also avoided answering whether or not we stay until the country is stable.]


f) Osama bin-Laden is quite popular in the Muslim world. 'Osama' was in fact one of the most popular names for Muslim baby boys born soon after 9/11. Hypothetically speaking, should the West intervene if fair and open elections brought al-Qaeda to power in some Muslim nation?


Foreign policy must not be a history-free zone. Canadian foreign policy should be cognizant of the fact that it was a deliberate policy of the Cold War era thinking that the US created, funded and armed the Taliban and al-Qaeda. This was done to create a ruthless band of killers with a fundamentalist zeal to over-turn Soviet rule in Afghanistan. Somehow the Pentagon never thought through that zealots who hated "godless Communists" might also hate "godless Capitalists."

[Editor's note: A fair point, but it's a little late to change that, don't you think?]

Blundering now on the side of Bush with his simplistic and dangerous "with us or against us" rhetoric is not going to bring anything but greater conflict to the world.

The "organization" know as al-Qaeda is not really organized and therefore, there is virtually no possibility that it could be elected anywhere. [Ed. note: Missing the point; Plenty of Islamist extremist parties are winning seats in Parliaments across the Muslim world...]

(As I understand it, "Osama" was always a popular Muslim name.)

[Ed. note: Not so, says the Guardian: "The name Osama has always been rare in northern Pakistan. Now, though, it is growing fast in popularity among parents choosing names for their children. In Pakistani cities, firms are named after him, too: Osama Medical Stores; Osama Property Services." Ditto on the name Osama's popularity in Nigeria's Muslim north... ]

g) Hamas, who is on Canada's list of banned terrorist groups, recently won the Palestinian Authority’s elections. Why is the West acknowledging/recognizing that electoral decision rather than invading to overthrow Hamas?

Hamas was democratically elected. The Middle East is a tinder box and no responsible nation would imagine invasion. Hamas also has non-military functions and faces a humanitarian crisis. Our help in humanitarian aid while condemning its history of terrorism (which we long ago did once the State of Israel was created following a Zionist terror campaign) is one way to help diffuse tensions in the Mid-East.

h) What can justify military intervention abroad?

Only the United Nations.

Consider our free newsletter. It's sent out twice a month.
Here are some related articles:

Elizabeth May Interview Part One
The first part of the foreign affairs section of the interview.
Foreign Affairs: The NSA, the IRS, DC and I-R-A-Q

Related articles are archived in the topical categories foreign affairs, federal politics, interview, leadership, Green Party of Canada.national security.

posted by lecentre @ 1:37 PM 0 comments links to this post

Comment On Imposition of Morality

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

The role of government was written about here yesterday by my co-blogger Ryan. I have a comment/response to make on his editorial, "On the Imposition of Morality."

Loyal readers will know that I think highly of Ryan "Blue Grit" and his political commentary. We often disagree, but he makes intelligent arguments, so I respect him. Yesterday's argument was founded on false premises however, and I think it requires rebuttal so that nobody should be confused as to the role of government.

Ryan argued that it is not government's role to legislate morality. On the surface, the argument sounds reasonable, as we associate "morality" legislation with things like gay rights, abortion, etc. However, morality means much more than what Pat Robertson and the US' Christian Conservative movement would have us (and Ryan, obviously) believe. Ryan recognized this, and went so far as to say that regulating speech is not something government ought to do. However, I think morality encompasses even more than that.

The core of morality, or ethics, is about judging what is good or bad. Whether one asks what are the qualities of an ethical person, or whether one asks what is the ethical/moral thing to do in a particular situation, there is always judgement being passed.

In order for government to function, it must exercise its judgement to determine what is good or bad for its constituency. In other words, government makes a moral/ethical judgement. Therefore, it is obvious that government's very nature is to impose morality of some sort.

To argue that government ought not to impose morality is to misunderstand government's role. Ryan wrote that government is here to protect people. While that may be one of the things it does, government's true role is to pass legislation with the aim of providing "peace, order and good government," as per the Canadian Constitution. This will ensure our rights to "life, liberty and security of the person," as per the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are the US equivalent).

I want to cite an example from Ryan's text to demonstrate how his argument self-contradicts, and can therefore not be accepted. We already noted that government is here to provide peace and order, and to ensure our rights to life and security. If we don't outlaw hate speech, which is inevitably an incitement to violence, it will be impossible to protect people's right to life and security, let alone peace and order.

Indeed, Ryan recognizes this and says it is a moral imperative to be intolerant of intolerance; that is, we cannot be tolerant of racism, anti-semitism and so on. However, his argument that it is not up to government to oppose intolerance with legislation is entirely implausible. Even if we were to accept his skewed definitions of ethics and government's role, government would still need to legislate against these things. It is not enough to outlaw murder - we need to make efforts to prevent it.

To conclude, government's role is inherently tied to ethics. It makes judgement calls on various issues based on an ethical-moral code and then legislates in accordance to this judgement. In Canada, government's role is specifically to provide for peace, order and good government, which involves protecting our fundamental rights to life, liberty and personal security. In fact, in a rare instance of me agreeing with the United Nations, life liberty and personal security are univeral rights! Allowing hate speech to thrive would be counter to government's essential duty. Evidently, it is up to government to impose morality.
-
Consider our free newsletter. It's sent out twice a month.
Here are some related articles:

• How Canadian politics function


• Freedom's Limits and their Importance!


• Freedom: Two Divergent Views

Related articles are archived in the topical categories Canadian federal politics, free speech ethics, rights, government.

posted by lecentre @ 11:58 AM 1 comments links to this post

Challenging the Religious Right on Pollution

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

I want to challenge the religious right on pollution. Bare with me, here, as I play devil's advocate; I had an interesting thought/question/argument about the topic where I've seen the scientific community defend its ideas and explain them, but the right hasn't risen to my challenge.

A little while ago, I asked why it appeared that scientists and the left were standing up for conservationism when this seemed to go contrary to Darwin, whom they endorse so strongly. On the other hand, I also challenged the religious right as to how they can support hugely polluting corporations which contribute to evolution and disproving their support for intelligent design. Not to mention it isn't exactly loving your neighbour when you dump toxic chemcicals in his back yard.

Anybody on the religious right care to explain this to me?

If you want to follow the answers to this question, consider our free newsletter. It's sent out twice a month.

Here are some related articles:

Interview with Green Leadership Candidate Elizabeth May - Part 6
Canada's "provocation" of Islamist terrorists
Tangled Bank Science Carnival

Related articles are archived in the topical categories environment, science, evolution, , religion.

posted by lecentre @ 12:57 AM 1 comments links to this post

On the imposition of morality

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

(Cross-posted at BlueGrit)

One of the favourite tactics of the reactionary right is to charge their opponents with engaging in the very same behaviour in which they themselves are engaging.

For example, they will often say, "the left demands tolerance, but they are intolerant of our beliefs." But the thing is, being tolerant demands being intolerant of intolerance. A proper analogy is that the use of force is wrong, but one must oppose the use of force with the use of force. The charges fall flat on their face; if your "beliefs" are intolerant; if your "beliefs" hold that I should be a second-class citizen (or worse); if your "beliefs" are that others should be oppressed using the civil law, I have no duty as a tolerant individual to tolerate them. In fact, it is completely the opposite - to be morally consistent in my demand for tolerance, I have a duty to oppose intolerance, even if that requires being "intolerant". To say that one should tolerate intolerance is as morally bereft as the cries of the pacifist who demands that violence be met with passivity. There is nothing wrong with being intolerant of intolerance - racists, sexists, anti-semitists, and homophobes should be relegated to the fringes of society where they belong.

Another example is claiming, in defence against the charge that they are attempting to legislate morality, that their opponents are also trying to legislate morality by, say, changing the definition of marriage to include same sex couples. (Their counterparts a couple of generations ago fumed equally about changing the definition of marriage to allow divorce; their counterparts in the United States did so when the definition was changed to include interracial marriage.) But this flaim is absolutly faulty on its surface, and here's why:

The belief that the government should not impose morality, is not imposing morality, no more than refusing to tolerate intolerance is wrong. It is completely inconsistent to claim that a belief in the moral neutrality of government is itself a moral judgment, just as it is inconsistent to claim that atheism is a religion. As atheism is, by definition, the absence of religion, so to is the moral neutrality of government a committment to amorality.

This does not mean that the citizen of a country are amoral, or that the members of the government are amoral. What is means it that the government itself, as a body, will not make moral judgments.

Some will say that protecting people against murder or theft is a moral judgment. I could not disagree more - that is simply the government performing its duty, and its duty is the safety of its citizens. That is why it exists - not to enforce moral rules, but to protect people.

Remaining morally neutral on questions of conscience is the best way to ensure social harmony. This is why the government should not legislate against abortion, nor should it make moral decisions about sexuality, nor should it decide who can and cannot get married, nor should it criminalize those who choose to speak virulently against gay people, or even black people or Jews. The cultural left must concede that last point, because again, the government should not side with their point or view no more than it should side with the cultural right's.

So no, allowing gay people to get married along with straight people is not "imposing" morality; nor is allowing abortion; nor is allowing responsible drug use; nor is allowing any form of consensual sex (even if paid for). The government in all of the above cases is quite explicitly leaving the question of morality to its citizens to decide without its interference and meddling - and that is exactly the way it should be.

posted by Ryan Ringer @ 3:01 PM 6 comments links to this post

Green Party's Elizabeth May Interview - 4

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

The following is the fourth part of Centrerion Canadian Politics' interview with the Green Party of Canada's leadership candidate, Elizabeth May. It finishes the economics section of the interview displaying May's reasonable grasp of the country's economic affairs, and moves on to May's oft-dissapointing, impractical views on foreign policy. (Paraphrase: "All we need to do to stop Iran is condemn Indian-US nuclear proliferation, and then everything will work out...")

To follow our coverage of the Green Party's leadership race and of environmental affairs, consider our free newsletter. It's sent out twice a month.

Green Party of Canada leadership candidate Elizabeth May speaks to Centrerion Canadian Politics on economics, the environment and foreign affairs.

i) How are environmental treaties such as Kyoto, Rio, and others affecting Canada's economy in terms of GDP, the unemployment rate and other standard measures of economic performance?

Not at all. We could, of course, be enhancing our economy by moving faster to meet the targets of various treaties, particularly Kyoto.

j) Have Canada's free trade agreements had an impact on the environment? How can such impacts be proven/disproven?

Yes there have been significant impacts. Some, such as air pollution causing deaths of Mexican children at the US border have been documented by the NAFTA side agreement's North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation.

Others, such as the chilling effect of investor–state challenges under Chapter 11 of NAFTA have been documented. I wrote this chapter, "Fighting the MAI," in Dismantling Democracy: The Multilateral Agreement on Investment and its Impact. Edited by Andrew Jackson and Matthew Sanger, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, (James Lorimer and Co, Ltd. 1998). The MMT-Ethyl challenge under Chapter 11 did serious damage to Canada's willingness/ability to regulate. I have recently written a chapter in a McGill Queens University Press analysis of ten years of NAFTA, documenting environmental impacts. (Breaking the Free Trade Addiction: An Intervention on Environmental Grounds, co-authored with Sarah Dover, in press)



i) One of the readers who participated in our contest heard that ethanol actually requires just as much energy to create as it produces. What do you know/ think of this theory?

What is your opinion on the Conservatives' support for ethanol?

Not all ethanol is the same. The George W. Bush approach is to turn corn into ethanol as a prop up to farmers, using coal fired plants to run the ethanol plants. No gains for the environment at all.

Even without the coal factor, the energy intensity of modern agricultural practices to grow corn makes the benefit from ethanol very marginal.

On the other hand, cellulose ethanol is brilliant in truly reducing carbon emissions. Canadian technology (Iogen and a few others) has determined ways to convert wood chips, straw and switch grass into ethanol. In Brazil, the use of sugar cane to make ethanol, now replacing gasoline in much of the country is another clear winner.
--

9) Foreign Affairs


a) What is your vision for Canada in international politics?

As above, answer 1. Lloyd Axworthy's vision of our use of "soft power," in conflict, poverty and environmental issues.

b) With you as leader, what would the Green Party's goals be for Canada's foreign policy?

Peace-maker, global leader in the transfer of environmentally advanced technologies to reduce pollution and improve energy efficiency, renewables etc.

c) President Ahmadinejad of Iran is developing his country's nuclear energy resources with the help of Russia, China and until recently, France. What is your opinion on this development in foreign affairs?

This is a dangerous development. The potential for nuclear proliferation runs high. The community of nations is undermined in confronting this by Bush's decision to trade in nuclear technology with India in contravention of the treaty. The lifting of trade restrictions on nuclear activity with India was tied to India joining Bush's "alternative" to Kyoto, the fraud known as the Asia Pacific Partnership on Climate Technology...

c) What should Canada do in that respect? Do you think the Francophonie can pressure France, or play a role in some other way? If so, how? If not, why not?

Canada must condemn the failure to abide by the NPT in the case of the US/India deal in order to have any credibility in condemning Iran.

Here are some related articles:

Tangled Bank Science carnival
Elizabeth May Interview Part 3
Creative Taxing Can Save the Environment
Green Debate Video

Related articles are archived in the topical categories federal politics, Green Party of Canada, foreign affairs, economics, leadership, interview.

posted by lecentre @ 12:17 PM 0 comments links to this post

Tangled Bank Carnival

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

This week, we get the honour of hosting the Tangled Bank science carnival. I'd like to thank the Tangled Bank's founder and organizer, Professor Myers of the University of Minnesota, Morris, for letting me host this gathering of science knowledge, trivia, and blogging. I came to it after submitting my Time-published letter to the editor on obesity and portion sizes.

Note: Centrerion Canadian politics hosts the Mediocre Media carnival and the Moderate Circus, highlighting moderate politics around the globe. Here's more information on the carnivals we host.

Since this is a science carnival, I want to take the opportunity to encourage all of you readers to consider Centrerion Canadian Politics environmental/political coverage of the past little while, including our
interview with Green Party Leadership candidate Elizabeth May (who used to direct the Sierra Club of Canada),
notes on the Green Party's leadership debate here in Montreal, and
an editorial entitled Creative Taxing Can Save the Environment.

Most of all, though, I'd like some answers to my question about scientific opposition to evolution and Christian support for Darwin. I may be confusing things, but some positions each of the two groups have are hard to understand.

Without further ado, I present the Tangled Bank, June 21st edition, aka Tangled Bank #56! While I normally like to give editorial comments, given the huge volume of submissions, and my unfortunate ignorance in many of these fields, I will simply present the carnival's posts in the chronological order I got them from Mr. Myers. I apologize in advance for any sarcastic/snide remarks, they're just there to mask my own insecurity at being so ignorant.

Update: I'm correcting some mistakes. I've attributed the good professor's actual place of teaching (yes, I know the expression is place of learning) properly, and I'm adding two posts I missed. To help them gain some of the residual traffic, I'll be putting it here at the top. Again, my apologies for the mistakes, but error is human, right?

Added posts worthy of your attention to make up for my error:
Isisfordia and the Origins of Modern Crocs: A newly described Cretaceous crocodile is helping scientists determine how modern crocodiles got their start. We learn this from the Hairy Museum of Natural History

James Hrynyshyn gives us: "How not to save the whales" from Island of Doubt. He says the Whaling Commission is an affront to science, because both sides of the whaling debate, who argue back and forth at the commission, abuse science and make junk arguments. A fasinating read!

GrrlScientist presents Europasaurus holgeri: the Smallest Giant posted at Living the Scientific Life. Grrl Scientists notes: this is a review of Douglas Erwin's new book, Extinction. It is a paleontological "whodunit" and it does a great job presenting the data that support various hypotheses as to why all life was nearly extinguished 252 million years ago.

Mediocre Media participant Josh Cohen at Multiple Mentality presents Rage... Taking Over... Josh mysteriously asks: "Do you feel like you're going crazy? Maybe you have a disease."

GrrlScientist presents another post, the, wait for it, The Rise of The Feathered Dragons posted at Living the Scientific Life.

Hsien-Hsien Lei, PhD, Science and Health Editor for Darren Rowse's heavyweight blog network, b5media, presents a post about "tissue engineering a beating heart." Now if only I knew what the meant... Anyways, it's at A Hearty Life and entitled, Growing a Heart.

Still in the lovely field of incomprehensible jargon, we have "A." suggesting we read
"Why You Weigh So Much: Dynamical Breaking of Chiral Symmetry" at his blog, Science is Potential (at least, that's what I think the latin means).
A explains: It's an introduction to the concept of "chiral symmetry breaking" for normal people. He adds, "let me know if you have any questions or need clarifications." How about explaining in the submission what chiral symmetry breaking is?

Chris McCullough, another regular contributor to Mediocre Media via his "blog for salty Christians" (is that how they described them before throwing them to the lions in Rome?), shares Al Gore and some inconvenient truths about global warming. For those of you who don't know, the former Vice-President of the US has made a movie about global warming that is now out in cinemas. Entitled An Inconvenient Truth, it is absolutely fantastic. Of course, Michae doesn't quite agree and he wants us to know that Gore himself ignored some inconvenient truths which suggest we humans are not causing global warming (to which I answer, who cares? We still need to do something about it!).

Joe Kissell shares an interesting things of the day with us. Robots that see and hear are nothing new, but researchers are now developing machines that can distinguish and identify odors. Applications include health care, public safety, and rescue work. Ah! Popular science! Hurray for Robots That Smell (so long as they don't smell too bad...) !!

Most mysteriously, we have some submitter named "Reason" asking us to take our pic.

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000876.php
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000877.php
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000878.php
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000879.php
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000880.php
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000881.php

Anyone know the winning lotto numbers?

From the more humanly named John Wheaton, we have two submissions, as John missed the previous carnival. The first considers science superstar, renowned physicist Stephen Hawking. John's second post is about the "Voyager Probe, 30 years later." (I'm holding back the comments on this one, but it's soooo tempting!) For those who don't know about Voyager, if I recall correctly, the Voyager Probe was a NASA project sending some shuttle (or other spacecraft) around space. Anyways, the lot of it is courtesy of John's Computer Newbie site.

Nick Anthis's submission to The Tangled Bank from The Scientific Activist: concerns anthropomorphic molecules. Though I can't remember right now what anthropomorphic means, I actually do know it. Dont' ask me how, but I do. Ok, no really. It means my girlfriend's grown two sizes, err molecules, rather. Anyways, my lame attempts at comedy aside, Organic People Chemistry is this week's special on anthropomorphs.

Josh Rosenau brings us information on writing poll questions and desert locusts' behaviour. Now there's someone with an open mind and a wide range of interests!

Jane Shevtsov at Perceiving Wholes (no, it's not a voyeur porn blog - it's a regular porn blog - just kidding, of course) fills us in on the "nitrogen cycle and nitrogen fixation by humans."

With no description, we have Jennifer Forman Orth's submission, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Something to do with an invasive species. Do you know one? I sure don't.

Mo Man the Neurophilosopher (who's a little neurotic with his naming, by the looks of it) gives us: Religiosity is a Purely Human Thing. Reminds me of psychology class, which I liked. Interestingly, the psych prof was a former Christian who is now an atheist - but supports Bush nonetheless (he was an atheist before Bush was in the national political picture). Then again, it also reminds of the local French accent here in Montreal where French Canadians will pronounce "maman" (mother) mo-mahn.

Mike Bergin shares with us some birding questions, namely a look at the Vireos of the American Northeast. Now there's a man who knows how to work the carnival blogosphere right, as I know of at least one other carnival which would be interested in that. More links for the same post! Smart guy.

Andre at BioCurious tells us that he loves taking a break from the lab and just staring at leaves. I find nature is restful for me too :).

Dave Munger presents Language and time: More on whether the future is literally in front of us. That sounds like a really interesting post! Questions of time have fascinated me ever since I learned that a) I can't manage my own and b) Someone on a train and someone off it will see a clock differently and yet both be right! At least, that's what I understood from Time magazine...

Back in the field of popular science, we have Jeremy Bruno at the Voltage Gate asking why it is we use so much harvested grass? He's talking about those roll-on lawns, of course, not the drug cartels. "At the cost of the eutrophication of lakes and bays and the dessimation [sic] of biodiversity, do Americans need giant tracks of short-cropped imported grasses in their yards? Why is this tradition so strong in our culture and so well-accepted?" Good question!

Phamous ole' Pharyngula (plural pharyngulae?) gives us "Polar lobes and trefoil embryos in the Precambrian." Who puts Brie Cheese in foil? Ok, maybe I stop making fun of the organizer of this carnival, who could probably display my pathetically tiny scientific knowledge in no more than a moment's time.

Josh Rosenau has more for us: Polar Bear Cannibalism, and how to grow big breasts. I'm not sure that this isn't actually a voyeur porn blog. Clicker beware.

Well, that's it. If I left something out, please send me an email (click Guided Tour, above, and go to the contact page). If you want to read more carnivals, consider our free newsletter. It's sent out twice a month.

Related articles are archived in the topical categories science, carnivals.

posted by lecentre @ 1:13 PM 7 comments links to this post

Creative Taxing Can Save the Environment

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

My economics prof, Mr. Philippe Ghayad, whom attentive readers will recognize for his contributions to correcting me here on purchasing power, trade imbalances and other posts on economics, has sent along an editorial entitled Creative Taxing Can Save the Environment. While I agree with the basic argument that fiscal policy can work to protect the environment, I just want to slip in a note about some things my economics prof wrote in the introduction concerning the science of global warming.

Mr. Ghayad writes in his introduction to challenge the reality of global warming.
He says that not all scientists agree on global warming. While that may be true, the overwhelming majority do. As can be seen in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, which Mr. Ghayad conveniently mentions, 100% of peer-reviewed articles on global warming published in scientific journals (928 of them) recognize its existence.

My prof also suggests global warming can be explained by cyclical factors. Gore's movie refutes the notion of global warming being explained by cyclical trends. If I recall correctly, this was done by showing recent warming is multiple times beyond what's been seen in the past.

The editorial refers to the ozone recovering as a sign that global warming isn't really such a big deal. The ozone is another environmental issue; it keeps sunlight out, while greenhouses gases keep it in. Therefore, if the ozone is recovering and the planet is still getting hotter, this is in fact proof of how dire the situation is.

Finally, Mr. Ghayad asks how, if we can't predict the weather three days from now, we can tell that global warming is happening. Compare apples with apples, that's how; we can't predict anything in the future, it's true, but we can evaluate past events to determine what the trend is, and such historical data mining shows global warming.

That having been said, Creative Taxing Can Save the Environment is nonetheless a great editorial. It highlights a number of ways that fiscal policy can help reduce pollution and sanitize our living conditions, and gives examples that help make the topic easier to understand. As to the criticisms I made above, they don't take away from the quality of the article in any significant measure. I'm publishing this for its economic insight after all, not because of the ideas on global warming. I encourage you all to read the following attentively.

Creative Taxing Can Save the Environment

by Philippe Ghayad, Concordia University and Dawson College Economics Professor


Even with the opening of Al Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, about the increase in global warming, it might still be hazardous to confidently claim that humans are destroying the environment at an unprecedented rate. The reason being is that it is a difficult variable to calculate and not all scientists agree on the issues at hand.

In one corner, a group of scientists believe that human activity is destroying our forests, water sources, glaciers and the natural habitats of animals. In the opposite corner, another group claims that the environment is cyclical and it is very hard to extract a global trend since the data is limited or unreliable. If we cannot even predict with precision what the temperature will be like in three days, how can we claim to know what is happening on a global scheme? Furthermore, a recent study done by Betsy Weatherhead , University of Colorado, shows that the ozone layer seems to have stabilized and might actually be on the recovery. Is this due to the Kyoto protocol or due to some natural downturn in the environmental cycle?

Regardless of which group of scientists is correct, human beings should not squander environmental resources. The problem is that the very act of staying alive requires that we use energy and that we produce waste (even in the act of breathing we create CO2 which is an emission that causes global warming!). Given this truism, how can we punish people for being wasteful? One way is to hurt them where it counts: their wallet.

Why does my neighbor wash his car every weekend even though his car has barely accumulated any dirt in a week? Because the cost that he bears in doing this activity is minimal. There is no water tax in my area and so he can wash his car several times in one day without having to pay for his main input: water. A "green tax" would alleviate this problem. A tax on water usage or a water counter (like Hydro-Quebec does with electricity) would create a deterrent to waste our most precious resource. This practice is used in Europe. "Green taxes" would force people to think twice about participating in activity that is detrimental to the environment.

Another example? How can we get people to purchase less SUVs that are less fuel-efficient than smaller cars? Simply tax the purchasers of these cars more. We could even go one-step further: tax gasoline consumers even more (note: in Quebec about 40% of the gas price paid at the pump is the sum of different taxes). We should not only pick on drivers though. Households that have inefficient chimneys pollute more and create more smog than cars do. A fiery chimney on a cold winter night is so cozy and snug... but so damaging to air quality! Make them [polluters] pay for the inconvenience that they impose on others.

Moreover, the money collected from these "green taxes" can be invested in activity that is beneficial to the environment, such as more efficient or more comfortable public transportation. This would hopefully convert even more drivers into users of public transportation. The objective here is not to get everyone off the road. This is an impossible task since some citizens need their car to work such as sales people or delivery workers and others probably save a lot of their time by using their car compared to public transportation. However, everybody has a price that they are willing to pay in order to use their car versus public transportation. Governments need to find ways to sway those drivers whose price is relatively low.

The money generated from these taxes can also be used to create incentives such as direct tax reductions. These incentives can rage from tax reductions on the purchase of hybrid cars to the purchase of electronic and energy saving thermostats by households.

The government has the power to directly turn its citizens into environmentalists without them even being aware of it. The problem is that politics and votes get in the way... and that's a whole different ball game.

If you want to keep current with issues in economics, the environment and with Professor Ghayad's insights on fiscal policy and the environment, which I hope he'll continue to share with us, consider our free newsletter. It's sent out twice a month. Here are some related articles:

Elizabeth May on the Canadian economy and the environment
May's economic and environmental thoughts, part 2
Interview with Elizabeth May, Green Party leadership candidate Part 1 of our interview with the famous environmentalist

Related articles are archived in the topical categories federal politics, environment, economics, fiscal policy, tax.

posted by lecentre @ 10:45 AM 1 comments links to this post

Anti Racism Carnival

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

The erase racism carnival is up at Jay Sennet's.

We've submitted our post on Canadian "provocation" of Islamist terrorists.

Related articles are archived in the topical categories carnivals, racism.

posted by lecentre @ 10:36 AM 0 comments links to this post

Middle East Analysts' Impressive Foresight

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

Two people with significant knowledge of the Middle East whom I've read in the past and have the highest respect for have proven incredible foresight. The first is brilliant political analyst Elliot Chodoff who writes and speaks in many public forums, and the second is world-renowned scholar Bernard Lewis, whose books on Islam are standard reading in colleges and university.

Consider this, from the Middle East on Target website.

"Gunmen fired rocket-propelled grenades Tuesday at a pro-Fatah Palestinian Authority security compound in the Gaza Strip, moderately wounding three maintenance workers, security and hospital officials said. - Ha'aretz - June 2006

With Israel out of the immediate picture, the terrorist organizations are likely to turn their guns on each other as they vie for power over the overcrowded cities and refugee camps, allowing order to rule only when it is their own... The battle for the control of Gaza has just begun; we don't expect to see a conclusion any time soon. - Elliot Chodoff - July 2004"

The other is something I recall hearing at a speech given here in Montreal by Bernard Lewis in the fall/winter of 2004: Iran is the world's biggest threat. At the time I had trouble giving credence to what he was saying, but it is obvious now with hindsight that he was right.

Related articles are archived in the topical categories Middle East, foreign affairs, analysis.

posted by lecentre @ 10:38 PM 0 comments links to this post

Elizabeth May Interview - Part 3

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

Green Party leadership candidate Elizabeth May has granted us an interview, of which this is the third part. We are presenting the interview, broken into pieces, throughout the week. Today we present the second part of the economics section of our interview with May.

Parts one and two of the interview covered issues of leadership and economics. This is part of our ongoing coverage of the Green Party's leadership race.

f) Most of the West as well as many emerging economies are dependent on oil. How important an issue is that, and why (not)?

Dependent is one word for it. "Addicted" is another. It is urgent that we break the addiction and dramatically reduce oil dependency. Sweden's recent pledge to go off oil is enormously encouraging.

g) If it is important, how would the Green Party act in regards to that? If not, what is the priority in alternative energy development?

We need to set clear goals and targets, and align economic and fiscal signals with those goals. (as described above).

The hierarchy of effectiveness in terms of costs and environmental benefits is as follows. Pursuing all aggressively can reduce our emissions and oil dependency dramatically -- without new large scale hydro or nuclear energy.

• Demand-side management
• Energy conservation (the two terms are often used synonymously but embody very different, although complimentary approaches.)
• Co-generation, combined heat and storage and seasonal storage.
• Expanded renewables from passive solar water heating to photovoltaics, wind power (especially off the shores of Lake Ontario, and our coasts, and in farmer's fields (hedgerows), run of the river hydro, tidal and geo-thermal.

h) Both Canada and the US have significant nuclear energy resources. Is it legitimate to expand their use to rid us of oil dependency? What about expanding use of hydro power? Note that one of our readers said: "Don't let them off saying we can conserve energy or solar/wind to meet all our energy needs. The sun doesn't shine all the time, and sometimes the wind doesn't blow..."

See above for the suite of measures. According to energy analyst Ralph Torrie, just demand side management and energy efficiency could cut our demand for energy in half, without any new large scale hydro, AND while shutting down existing nuclear and coal-fired plants. (see the study: Kyoto and Beyond, David Suzuki Foundation website, Climate Action Network site.)

Premier McGuinty should take note: not every unpopular decision is brave and far-sighted. Some are just plain stupid.

McGuinty has made an irresponsible and reckless decision, without having insisted on a clear analysis of all elements of Ontario's energy future. The advice of the Ontario Power Authority was manifestly inadequate as a basis for decision-making. It failed to even address the potential for conservation, and, as exposed in the Sierra Club of Canada research, only concluded that nuclear power was environmentally acceptable by rushing a private consultant to complete a hasty and incomplete report without including key impacts of nuclear including the mining of uranium. The pro-nuclear "cult," as identified by former Ontario Hydro chair, William Farlinger, is still in existence.

The OPA report did not make any case for ordering reactors in 2006 or anticipating any shortfalls before 2014. Yet, Premier McGuinty is using the pretence of imminent shortfalls to buttress a dangerous decision. At the same time, the Premier is backing away from the scheduled closing of dirty coal plants that drive up greenhouse gases and smog.

Ontario taxpayers and electrical users (and the environment) have already suffered from the enormous cost over-runs and unreliability of the nuclear industry. Cost overruns on the last nuclear station built in Ontario at Darlington were in the billions of dollars. Debt incurred by Ontario Hydro (the predecessor to OPG) in the operations of its power reactors amounted to over $35 billion dollars. Meanwhile, federal taxpayers have already sunk over $17 billion into the Crown Corporation pushing nukes, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.

Energy efficiency expert, Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, reaffirms the advantages of energy efficiency over nuclear and adds "... nuclear power saves as little as half as much carbon per dollar as wind power and traditional cogeneration, half to a ninth as much as innovative cogeneration, and as little as a tenth as much carbon per dollar as end-use efficiency. ... Empirically, on the criteria of both cost and speed, nuclear power seems about the least effective climate-stabilizing option on offer. "

What is urgently needed is a plan to reduce air-conditioning demand in summer, to sub-meter apartment buildings and condos in the downtown of Toronto and to build green energy options within Toronto to reduce the stresses at the two pinch-points where all electricity for the metro area must pass. A promise to build reactors now does nothing about power problems, not through shortages but due to mismanagement, in the short-term. The federal taxpayers having sunk billions in to AECL already should stay light years away from assuring McGuinty of covering cost over-runs for an unwarranted, unjustified, wrong-headed political cop-out.


If you want to keep up to date with the Green Party's leadership race, consider our free newsletter. It's sent out twice a month and keeps you informed on important issues in Canadian politics. Here are some related articles:

• Green Leadership Debate Notes
• Green Debates Notes 2
• McDonald's Causes Global Warming (humour)

Related articles are archived in the topical categories federal politics, Green Party of Canada, economics, interview, leadership, environment.

posted by lecentre @ 12:32 PM 1 comments links to this post

Green Leadership Candidate May Interview Part 2

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

Here is the second part of our interview with Green Party leadership candidate Elizabeth May. (Part one of the interview was posted yesterday.)

5) How would you balance the leadership you would have to provide with the living platform? Since grassroots opinion can shift from one day to the next, how do you avoid becoming the next Mr(s). Dithers?

I have never been indecisive, but the Green Party policies come from the membership, not the leader. I disagree with the premise of the question. There is nothing more changeable about grassroots opinion than about centralized elitist opinion. Policies need to be driven by issues and the best possible available solutions. Not mere opinions.

6a) What is your conception of the Green Party leadership? b) Having considered that, what should the leader's priorities be?

a) My concept of leadership is service. A leader is not a dictator, not a parent, not a boss. A really great leader serves the needs of the party as it evolves. In Green Party terms, a leader must be charismatic, media-savvy and effective as a spokesperson. A leader should also be inclusive, friendly, helpful and supportive, a problem-solver and gifted in dispute resolution.

b) Answered above.

7) How would your leadership distinguish itself from that of the other candidates?

I come to the party leadership with significant public credibility and experience. I am well known to the national media, and well respected. My work has been honoured with two honourary doctorates (Mount Saint Vincent and University of New Brunswick), a permanent chair in my name at Dalhousie University, an award from the United Nations Environment Programme, and the Order of Canada at the Officer level. I am the author of five books and a commentator on radio and television as well as a university associate professor at Dalhousie and Queens University. The other candidates are excellent, however, on any objective assessment of relative strengths my national profile and reputation are of benefit to the party in a way that the others cannot claim (20 years from now, let's hope they will!). A woman leader in federal politics is also a benefit in distinguishing ourselves from the other parties. (Even with 20 years the other candidates will not switch genders, but let's hope in 20 years all the other parties are led by women and the Greens will need a male leader to distinguish themselves from the "old girls' club"!)

Economics

Economics

a) How do you assess the Canadian economy's current "greenness"?

Not at all "green."

b) What's the relation like between the economy and the environment?

Quoting Herman Daly, former senior economist to the World Bank "The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment."

c) What trends do you see in the relationship? Where are we heading in the next three to 5 years?

What Green initiatives could have the greatest impact on the economy? If an election were called the day after you became Green Party Leader, what platform planks would you offer Canadians?

As above.

d) What will the Green Party's fiscal policy be like, under your leadership? Conservative? Socialist? Something else? (Examples…)

Not left or right, but ahead. We are in an era of transformative political change. Clinging to anachronistic old labels will increasingly be seen as a measure of irrelevance. As Bill Good of CKNW in Vancouver puts it, "It is not a question of left or right, but of right and wrong."

Fiscal policies will avoid debt, paying off whatever we owe the IMF on an urgent basis. Policies will be revenue neutral with fairly distributed benefits throughout society.

e) People have argued that being ecologically sensitive is a privilege of rich societies that developing nations can't afford. What do you say to that?

Nonsense. The environmental abuses of industrialized societies contribute to impoverishment of poorer countries. Some of the most effective practices in environmental stewardship come from the global South (The Greenbelt Movement in Kenya, the Chipko Movement in India, Curitiba, Brazil's land use planning and transit, etc.)

If you want to follow our coverage of the Green Party and its leadership race, consider our free newsletter. It's sent out twice a month. Related articles are archived in the topical categories federal politics, Green Party of Canada, environment, leadership, interview.

posted by lecentre @ 2:58 PM 2 comments links to this post

A New Carnival of the Insanities

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

The Carnival of the Insanities has been posted! Doc Sanity has discriminating taste and doesn't accept just every submission to her carnival, and the result is one of the best political carnivals on the web. Common-sense writers explaining and exploring topics that need to be covered, but often aren't. If you like Centrerion Canadian Politics' content, know that the good doctor's carnival features our articles and many more of a similar bent.

(For those who don't know, a "carnival" is a post on a particular theme that links to other blogs' posts on that theme. In this case, the theme is politics. You can participate and get links to your blog/site too.)

I only wish I could say our submissions are the best in the carnival, because that would be a huge achievement. You'll note that many people linked from the Doc's carnival are also participants in the Mediocre Media carnival we host, and/or members of our blogroll... If I could equal the Doc's writing (read in particular her posts on Denial), that would be even more incredible.

All this to say: go see the Carnival of the Insanities now!!

Related articles are archived in the topical categories carnivals, foreign affairs.

posted by lecentre @ 6:24 PM 0 comments links to this post

Background of internal PA violence

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

Hi all,
I just posted an analysis of the heated situation in the palestine on my blog. A reprint of the article follows:

Things are getting very heated in the palestine (I use 'the' because here 'palestine' is a geographic reference, i.e. from the River to the Sea), and particularly in territories controlled by the PA. Within the past few weeks, almost two dozen people have been killed due to violence between Arab Palestinians. The conflict is extremely complex but boils down to politics and power-struggle.

Ever since a group of influential jailed Palestinians (ALL of whom, by the way, have been linked to terrorism) proposed a document that called for a coalition "government" of the PA, things have been steadily getting more sectarian.

To provide some context to MSM news reports, I'd like to provide the following background info I have gleaned from years of following the conflict. (Upon request, I should be able to find reliable sources, almost always MSM articles, for the facts presented below)

The PA has a (very large, bigger than the entirety of the standing Canadian army in fact) number of security forces on it's official payroll. These forces are also armed by the PA, something set out in the Oslo accords agreed upon by Israel and Arafat's PLO. One of the problems is that the PA forces are divided into numerous subgroups with varying loyalties. The MSM has recently started to group all PA forces by pro-Hamas or pro-Fatah loyalties, but the reality is much more nuanced. Amongst the MSM denoted 'pro-Fatah' forces, many are de facto loyal to PA president Abbas, while others who were loyal to Arafat before his death tend to pursue independent agendas that are sometimes sharply different from Abbas'. This includes splinter groups of Al Aqsa Brigades (known for their terrorism against Israelis) and Tanzim (also known for terrorism against Israelis). As such, we have recently seen a resurgence of violent conflict between pro-Abbas pro-Fatah forces and anti-Abbas pro-Fatah forces, something the MSM has for the large part completely ignored.
There are also sometimes violent divisions amongst pro-Hamas forces, not all of whom are on the official PA payroll (more on this later). The Economist recently identified six (!) different Hamas leadership blocs, with varying agendas, sources of funding, freedoms/powers (two of the leadership blocs are in jail), loyal bases etc... The six identified blocs are
1- notional chief Khaled Meshal in Damascus, with links to Syria and Iran
2- the PA Hamas party's heavyweights, led by Haniyeh, in Gaza
3- the rest of the PA Hamas party in PA-controleld territories in Yesha
4- "convicted prisoners in Israeli civilian jails"
5- those Hamas leaders in "administrative detention" in Israeli military jails
6- the on-the-ground leaders of the supra-PA Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades

Yet another issue is that since the election of Hamas into the PA parliament, the PA has been unable to pay most owed wages to the forces on its payrolls. Certain subgroups of the forces with certain loyalties however have been getting paid steadily. This fact has contributed to the sectarianism between various groups of armed forces (read: jealousy).

In addition to the conflict internal to the armed forces on the payroll of the PA, there are also numerous Palestinian heavily-armed groups that are not on the PA payroll, including numerous small groups or militias... Prior to Hamas's election victory, practically all armed forces openly loyal to Hamas (they went and many still go by the name of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, and their numbers were big... not to mention that they were repsonsible for dozens of successful terrorist attacks on Israelis) were not on the PA payroll.

As complicated as the de facto reality is, the de jure situation is very complicated as well and is consequential on the above-described reality on the ground. Legally, by PA by-laws, the official PA forces are heavily subgrouped with incoherent and cumbersome chains of command. This is due to the legal origin of the PA Prime Minister position. This position was created by PA president Arafat's orders in order to appease international pressure that he was controlling the PA dictatorially and was imposing his condemnable approach (encouraging and facilitating violence and terrorism, blatantly lying to international media, as per Forbes and others stealing BILLIONS of dollars from Palestinians, etc...) on the PA. PA president Arafat created the position grudgingly and tried as hard as he could, through sometimes blatant (giving certain powers to the PM but legally enshrining veto power for the PA president) and sometimes complex bureaucratic schemes (new commitees within the PA, that he the PA president would chair, would get certain powers) to keep as much control over the PA armed forces in the hands of the PA president (himself at the time) as possible. After intense pressure internally and externally, a bureaucratically complex compromise was reached where certain subgroups of the forces would be under his direct or (through the committess) indirect control and others under the control of the PA parliament. Wikipedia sums it up as follows: " Arafat established over ten distinct security organizations through various mechanisms in an alleged divide et impera scheme, which is claimed to have guaranteed an atmosphere of power-struggle in the Authority which enabled him to preserve overall control." Currently, Abbas is the PA president while the PA parliament is controleld by Haniyeh-led Hamas. As a result, de jure, the conflicting Haniyeh-led Hamas and Abbas-led Fatah legally control varying sub-groups of the official PA forces.

As mentionned, the sectarianism is becoming very evident due to the proposed document that Abbas wants to have a referendum on. Hamas-loyals are worried it could lead to them losing some or all power, whereas moderate Fatah supporters hope it'll be enough to appease the internationla boycott on giving financial aid to a Hamas-led PA and radical Fatah-loyals hope it'll completly topple Hamas from power.

Clearly, the situation is delicate and complex, with some loyalties spanning regionnal or family ties, and religious convictions (Fatah believes in separating Mosque from eventual State, Hamas is very much opposed).

Recently, the Israeli government has done something that I feel it should have been very careful about. Olmert had the IDF patrol convoys of weapons (several hundred all together) going from Jordan to certain PA forces loyal to Fatah. This was seen by some as aiding the sectarianism. I suspect this act will be oft-quoted by future Chomskyist historical revisionists (I mean that in the worst sense of the word) who will attempt to blame Israel for all the palestinian violence.

posted by Kman @ 12:17 PM 2 comments links to this post

Green Leadership Candidate Elizabeth May Interview

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

Our interview with Green Party of Canada leadership candidate Elizabeth May has just been completed.
The well-known environmental-lobby leader has given us a voluminous interview, in which she discusses issues as varied as Stephen Harper's "Alliance-takeover" (paraphrase) Conservatives; ethanol, nuclear and other alternative energies; Iran, and Canada's obesity epidemic. Revealing herself as a person with a breadth of knowledge certain encyclopedias might envy, May also comes off as harbouring a naive idealism unfamiliar with the realm of foreign affairs.

A fascinating personality quickly emerges from the responses. It rapidly becomes evident that this Green leadership candidate has a strong sense of duty ("My concept of leadership is service"), as well as a certain loyalty to many leftist dogmas ("What can justify foreign intervention? Only the UN"), though she doesn't consider such labels to be adequate anymore.

May breaks labels and shows she's more than a one-dimensional person that Greens are usually stereotyped as (sometimes with good reason). Her grasp of environmental affairs is firm and she rattles off citations of study after study - a grasp one ought to expect from a person vying to lead the Green Party. Her ideas for economic policy seem reasonable, if a bit vague and not as meticulously researched as her environmental policy. She wants to eliminate IMF influence in Canada by getting rid of IMF-linked debts; intelligent, precise policy. Elsewhere, May mentions "demand-side management" as a priority for reducing our oil dependency, without specifying what sort of legislative measures this would mean. Still in the realm of vagaries, I asked whether environmental treaties were affecting the economy, with specific regard to standard economic measures. "Not at all," was the answer.

In other areas, though, the Sierra Club of Canada's former Executive Director frankly dissapoints. Foreign affairs was not a strong suit. Queried about what Canada can do about Iran, the media-favourite May says we must first condemn proliferation of nuclear arms to India in order to have any credibility denouncing the Iranian regime's weapons, and leaves it at that. She considers that Canada should dissociate itself from the "bogus US war against terror," as though terrorism were only an American problem.

The impression I got was that of someone nostalgic for a quieter past where terrorism could be ignored and the Canadian military had no role other than peacekeeping... a naive worldview, to say the least.

May also displayed an interesting propensity to go off on tangents or to avoid answering directly. For instance, in response to a question about the legitimacy of expanding use of nuclear or hydro power, May quickly says that such expansion is illegitimate, then goes into a 400+ word digression against Ontario PM Dalton McGuinty. This spiced up the interview and revealed a passionate side that wasn't as evident in the Green Party's recent leadership debate.

Some of the best parts of the interview came in response to questions submitted in our interview contest. When May and her rival, David Chernushenko, agreed to grant Centrerion Canadian Politics interviews, a contest was held asking readers and friends to suggest questions to ask them. Thus a question on ethanol proved to be an eye-opener and earned a truly informative, remarkable answer that displays May's vast knowledge of environmental issues, as mentioned above.

Certain other reader-submitted questions, unfortunately, could not be classified within the general themes of the interview. Placement in the Miscellaneous section unfortunately resulted in their being largely ignored by May. This was something that really dissapointed me. Questions on social issues such as integration of immigrants with illiberal values, or custodial rights over children were really well-phrased and important to this country's political debate.
However, to be fair, the interview was incredibly long, and May must have been a little tired by the time the Miscellaneous section came up.

Overall, our interview with Elizabeth May is shocking, insightful, and an excellent way to get to personally know this candidate for the Green Party of Canada's leadership, and what she stands for. Though I obviously disagree with her on many fronts, she is evidently a strong leadership candidate with a powerful intellect and a subtle, pleasant sense of humour. As mentioned, the interview is rather long (it totals over 14 pages in Word), so we will be presenting over the course of the week, broken into sections .

Here is the interview's first section, a subsection of the leadership questions.

Questions for Green Leadership Candidates: Responses from Elizabeth May

Leadership

1) During the last election, Stephen Harper made a point of promoting the five priorities that a Conservative government would pursue. What five priorities would a Green Party government under your leadership pursue?


I think the "five priorities" of Harper should not be aped by the Green Party team. The reality is that there are more than five important issues to be confronted. No government should put itself in the absurd position of insisting that leadership involves only the things that can be counted on the fingers of one hand. I have an even dozen major priorities. All are critical. It will be fine. Women have always had more than five important things to do at any one time.

Recognizing that the leader of the Green party is primarily a spokesperson and that policies and programmes are decided by the membership and the grassroots, I would offer the following as personal choices, pending membership approval and input.

My priorities are as follows:

1. Reform the fiscal system. Get the economic signals aligned with social and environmental goals. Reduce (and where possible) eliminate taxes on the things we want (employment and profits) and increase the tax burden on things we do not want (toxic chemical releases, energy waste, greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution and soil contamination).
2. Eliminate poverty in Canada. As part of the overhaul of the fiscal system, work with provinces to rationalize the multiple programmes for income support (employment insurance, disability insurance, child support, parental leave, old age pensions, welfare, etc) with a single negative income tax provision. This would create income support, reducing the need for provincial equalization payments, and creating an incentive to work, even part time, for families below the subsistence level. (I note having recently learned from a United Church minister in Calgary that children are sleeping in the basement of his church routinely. They are homeless. Both parents are working and still cannot afford a roof over their heads.) The rationalization will remove some civil servants from employment primarily directed at "snooping" on the poor. These jobs can be re-aligned with matching private sector employment opportunities with the unemployed.
3. Create mechanisms to direct RRSPs to sustainable local investment. Why couldn't we direct RRSPs to the local mass transit system? To the upgrading of water treatment plants? To the school system? Why are Canadians given massive incentives to invest in non-sustainable resource extraction in developing countries via bank and federal tax policies?
4. Address the health care system. Ensure the continued access to universality in publicly provided health care. Reduce waiting times by eliminating the backlog in patient treatment through better management. Build a health protection/disease prevention approach into health care in Canada through lifestyle changes and the elimination of chemicals with the proven capability of causing cancer, depressing the immune system, acting as xeno-estrogens, neurotoxins, mutagens, teratogens, as well as those substances linked to infertility.
5. Re-establish Canadian foreign policy along Pearsonian values. Ensure that peacekeeping is undertaken only under the flag of the United Nations, with nations accepting peace-keeping always having the choice to determine the country of origin of the peacekeepers. Commit and realize the Pearson target of 0.7% GDP to Overseas Development Assistance. With specific regard to Afghanistan, reject any suggestion that Canada plays any role in the bogus "US war against terror." Help civil society achieve a complete disarmament of Taliban and anti-Taliban warlord armies.
6. Reaffirm Canada's commitment to nuclear disarmament. Raise to a higher profile the report of the Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction, chaired by Hans Blix (report released June 1, 2006). Place Canada in the lead of nations acting on the report’s recommendations to end, once and for all time, the threat of the use of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
7. Complete an inventory of the impacts on social, economic and environmental policy of current trade and investment agreements. Where the impact is negative, as in the case of NAFTA, begin diplomatic negotiated withdrawal from these agreements. Similarly, revisit any loans from the IMF and re-pay as soon as possible to remove IMF influence on Canadian domestic policy.
8. Ensure compliance with all international legally binding environmental treaties. Ensure Kyoto targets for the first commitment period (6% below 1990 levels between 2008-2012) are met and that targets derived form scientific advice are set for the mid and long term. These targets are 30% below 1990 levels by 2020, 50% by 2030 and 80% by 2050. (Note that the 80% by 2050 target is that of the State of California). This will likely entail a moratorium on any new Tar Sands development and saying no to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline.
9. Ensure that every Canadian can obtain a university education, without experiencing debt. Bring back bursaries and eliminate interest bearing loans for university students. Consider the "Irish Tiger" model as well as others to determine the best Canadian approach.
10. Improve programmes for new Canadians. Work with professional societies to streamline approvals for qualified foreign doctors, engineers and other professionals to achieve Canadian certification where qualified.
11. Pass legislation to ensure that Canada adopts democratic reform, in some form of proportional representation.
12. Protect the global fisheries by banning bottom trawlers in Canada and advancing a global ban on draggers and drift nets. Protect Canadian agriculture with programmes to assist farmers in local organic agriculture. Increase opportunities for farmers to benefit from renewable energy and low carbon strategies.

2) Besides being included in the leaders' debates, how does the Green Party go about getting an MP elected next election?

The leaders' debate is crucial. If I am chosen as leader, many media commentators (from Susan Riley to Barbara Yaffe) [sic] to Dr. David Suzuki believe I will be in the debates. Beyond that we will recruit high profile and credible candidates who will benefit from the growing support for the Green Party in Canada. We will position the Green Party as content driven, not style conscious. Policy discussions and seminars across the country will help us build the best platform of down to earth policies for a brighter healthier Canadian future.

3) Are you familiar with the Green Party’s living platform?

Yes.

4) Would platform contributors dictate the Green Party platform?

Any platform must have a democratic approval process. It should also have a mechanism for maximizing grassroots engagement.

5) From a reader who participated in our leadership interview contest: "The Green Party positions itself as a party of the grass roots. But over the past few years, the grass roots portions of organization (namely policy development and internal governence) have been withering due to neglect.
How do we correct that, and see that it doesn't happen again?"

Ensure adequate financial support to building the party at the grassroots. That should be the priority.

--End of Elizabeth May Interview, Leadership-subsection #1--

Tomorrow we'll be publishing the next part of the interview, considering more leadership issues and economic affairs.

If you want to follow our coverage of the Green Party and its leadership race, consider our free newsletter. It's sent out twice a month, and keeps you informed on issues in Canadian politics (i.e. it's not limited to Green Party's leadership race). Related articles are archived in the topical categories federal politics, Green Party Canada, environment, leadership, interview.

posted by lecentre @ 11:25 AM 1 comments links to this post

Green Party Leadership Debate Notes 2

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

The Green Party's French-language debate between its leadership candidates took place two nights ago, here in Montreal. Elizabeth May (M) and David Chernushenko (C) are vying for the leadership, as is a third candidate, Jim Fannon, who did not show up to the debate for reasons unknown. At any rate, here is the second part of my notes (here's part one of my Green leadership debate notes) on the Green leadership's French debate.

A question was asked as to whether the candidates would continue to work for the Green Party even if they didn't win the leadership. Chernushenko flip-flopped on this and eventually gave a moderated, timid yes. M gave a vivid answer saying she has burned her bridges behind her and has no future other than in the Green Party.

C: I'm 100% engaged in the Green Party, totally engaged. [...] There's lots of work to be done even if one isn't the party leader.

M: For 17 years I was part of the Sierra Club [so leaving was difficult]. I've already made my decision. "Je n'ai rien d'autre. J'ai fait un choix pour le reste de ma vie que je vais travailler pour le Parti Vert." ("I have nothing else. I have made a choice, and that is to dedicate the rest of my life to working for the Green Party.") I was impressed, and I'd say the strength and sincerity of this answer moved a few other people in the room as well.

C: "Il y a plusieurs facons de faire. Les autres [partis] sont prets a parler vert mais ils ne sont pas prets a agir vert." ("There are many ways to go about this. [...] The other parties are ready to talk green, but they aren't ready to act green!") I liked that too, as the Liberals are big-talkers on the environment who don't really walk the walk, and of course, the Conservatives are no better.

M: "C'est dommage que Jim Fannon n'est pas la. C'est evident que nous sommes un tres forte equipe." ("It's a shame Jim Fannon isn't here, because it's really quite obvious we've got a strong team.") Also, we're not at each other's throats in this debate as the other parties are [in debates].

Question: What is your opinion on strategic voting? (For those of you who don't know, this is the practice of voting for a candidate with better odds of winning a riding than the candidate you'd prefer to win. Like supporting Brazil for the World Cup because, while you'd prefer Ghana to win, Ghana has very little chance of actually taking the title.)

M: I was part of a coalition that supported it (sensing why the question was asked), but it wasn't my personal position. "La democratie fonctionne mieux lorsque les gens votent pour le candidat qu'ils aiment le mieux, pas celui qu'ils detestent le moins." ("Democracy functions best when people vote for the candidate they like best, not the one they hate least.")

Solid! I think she may have prepared that answer though, ahead of time, because it seems like too well-worded a sentence for anyone to come up with on the spur of the moment... Nevertheless, that would still mean good preparation.

C: C'est un concept absurde. La strategie c'est un meilleur pays, le developpement durable. [Il faut penser, avant de voter,] 'Quel est votre strategie?' [Ou voulez-vous en venir avec le Canada?]
La strategie [pour le Parti Vert] c'est d'avancer au point ou il [l'electorat] voit qu'on peut gagner.

This was an equally nice idea, that unfortunately doesn't translate well into English (partly because it was slightly awkward phrasing). Chernushenko said that strategic voting is an absurd concept; the real strategy he said, is to advance your interests by determining what your aims are for Canada, and to vote accordingly. The Green strategy is to build to the point where the electorate sees Green candidates as realistically capable of winning a riding, which would put an end to "strategic voting."

M: Cites David Emerson, the Liberal who went Conservative. She continues to ask what good it is to vote strategically when your least-hated elected representative can just change parties?

C: Cites a similar story.

Question: Can a single MP change things?

C: Yes, and we've seen this before. Cites the example of an elected official in Paris.

M: Cites Canadian Parliamentarian Chuck Cadman, who saved the Liberal minority government at one point. Then the explosion: "Le vrai nom de ce parti c'est le Parti Alliance Conservateur Republicain du Canada!" ("The real name of the Conservative Party of Canada is the Alliance Conservative Republican Party of Canada!")

Wide appreciation in the room for this; I was less than thrilled, to say the least. I would hate for the Greens to pander to close-minded anti-American sentiment - you'll notice those that hate Bush and the Republicans almost inevitably are the same people saying that Americans are dumb, fat imperialists - and this is definitely an example of it.)

C (agreeing): "On peut changer le nom mais pas les couleurs." ("We can change the name but not what the party stands for.") Answering the original question, he says that as soon as one MP is elected, Canadians will vote "en masse" for the Greens.

Sounds a little utopian to me... C missed an opportunity to clarify that Green opposition to Bush's party and/or Harper's Conservatives is a matter of policy, rather than fear-mongering opportunism. Both candidates here should have been clearer about their problems with the right, rather than just playing this easy, unclassy card.

M (agreeing): It will be an important "psychological barrier" that will be overcome. May couldn't find the words in French, if memory serves.

That was another thing I noticed in the debate. Chernushenko's French is at a relatively decent level, and certainly stronger than May's, who several times had to resort to saying something in English. Neither candidate is fluid though (Chernushenko is arguably fluent, but he's not fluid/smooth), and each one's French will need work. The practice will have to be given high priority if they're going to debate with the other party leaders in nationally-televised debates.

The following question asked M and C whether they thought a party leader should also be the party's spokesperson. The question probably came from someone in attendance (questions were culled from the audience and from the Green Party's website), as this issue relates to a recent issue in Quebec politics where a far left party's spokesperson shot off at the lip about how 9/11 might conceivably be some big conspiracy.

At any rate, I got distracted with my camera again at this point, and I also daydreamed a touch (I think May's answer didn't really grab me at the outset). Overall though, I don't think it was much to miss, since this wasn't a hugely important question; if a party has its communications act together, then it's irrelevant who is communicating, be it the leader or a spokesperson.

M: [Missed because of distraction.]

C: We're preaching to the choir too much.

M: I have a good network, including links with CEOs and people outside of militant environmental circles.

[...]

Question: Your priorities as a leader?

C: I want to retake the number "5" from Stephen Harper. My priorities are durable energy, promotion of a healthy population to save money to treat the truly sick, affordably housing, and a couple of things that were inaudible to me (not a distraction this time).

M: I have 10 priorities [read: I'm twice as good!!?]. "Reformer le systeme fiscal," something about "equitable and ecologique" (my hearing again), and eliminating poverty in Canada (not just reducing it, as Chernushenko apparently suggested).

C: I'm human, I can err, so to prove all that to you, I'm going to admit a mistake (yes it really was that awkward). I forgot arts and culture. We need to support people who work in these fields more than we currently do. Quite so!

M: It's a scandal people can't graduate from university without a huge debt load.

I agree!

My problem with all these nice wishes was that the candidates weren't asked what the flip side was: where they would take the money to finance their goals, nor how they would practically achieve them. Sure, let's help the poor, students, and those in the arts (kind of redundant, I know), but what do we cut to do that? Unfortunately, I'm not one to criticize, as the questionnaires I emailed the leadership candidates don't ask that either. I promise to ask them that as a follow-up, though.

The next question was axed upon party priorities and issues.
C: We need a worldview, to define the rights and responsibilities of parties. Also, we need to negotiate rules for fundraising. (That I agree with. It's annoying to get a dozen letters in the same week all asking for pledges, as C said.)

M: We need to give a sense of unity to the party.

Somehow the next thing I heard concerned other groups with similar politics to the Greens. I was alienated by the comments from the Green Party's future leaders. I'm no great fan of NGOs, which are not infrequently (I'm using a double negative because I hesitate to suggest this is a frequent occurence, it's just that it's not rare, either.) run by people with a political agenda and aren't really as pure as their mission statements and press articles claim. May and Chernushenko both wanted to create closer ties with them, however...

M: We should expand links with pacifist groups, anti-nuclear groups and work with them.

C: I agree; these groups can often say things that are different for a political party to say.

Does that mean you would have NGOs be unofficial spokespeople for the Green Party of Canada? C has a good point, and you can tell Chernushenko's got a sharp political mind, but this was a bit strange.

Finally, the candidates read their closing statements to bring the night to a close.

C: We need ecological wisdom, meaning that we need to recognixe we're part of the environment and consequently need to protect it. We should be the party of social justice, which means promoting equality. This doesn't mean forcing everyone to be equal, though; promoting equality means giving everyone equal opportunity. (Couldn't agree more on this point.) The next little bit was mostly platitudes and cliches about how the Greens are about non-violence, respect, diversity, quality over quantity, and mixed in was something about how repression won't solve conflicts.

(Gee, I was under the impression most Canadians did believe repression was a useful tool to solve conflicts!)

M: Thankyou to everyone who is here tonight and helped make this debate possible. May went on to read an excerpt from the Earth Charter that summarized her positions. "Nous nous trouvons a un moment determinant, ou l'humanite doit choisir son avenir." ("We are at a critical juncture in time, where humanity must pick its future.") She repeated her commitment to eliminating poverty, and then named five qualities for an ideal society: simple, clean, durable, fair ("equitable," which means, fair, but has connotations to trade, as in fair-trade coffee), and of course at peace.

Nice, but again kind of cliche and utopian. I think that the Green Party and it's leadership candidates, to be taken more seriously by a majority of Canadians, needs to review its glossary and drop everything that the average, realistic, and slightly cynical Canadian considers utopian.

Overall the debate was fascinating, and really instructive of the candidates positions. I hope my notes have helped clarify those positions to you, dear readers, even if here and there they are marred by distractions and/or daydreaming and/or hearing difficulty. Overall, both David Chernushenko and Elizabeth May are pretty close ideologically.

In practical terms, the important differences I saw are as follows.

• With regards to the candidates' French, Chernushenko has the upper hand. Both candidates need to improve the quality of their French, though.
• In terms of media, it's no secret that May has good contact in the mainstream media and in society's upper-crusts, and so might have an easier time giving the party the "big" stature it needs. On the other hand, Chernushenko specifically knows where the Greens need to go outside of their comfort zone, as can be seen in part one of these debate notes.
• Chernushenko is more obviously a politician, and has a good handle on technical/practical aspects of politics that I'm not sure May has. This makes sense given Chernushenko's history in party politics vs May's history in general activism.
• May's contacts and stature in society would make it easier for the Green Party of Canada to get big donors on board its campaign.

There wasn't a clear winner to the Green Party's French-language debate, but there is evidently a strong field that is making for a very interesting race. I still haven't had time to upload pictures, but I'll be putting them online here in the next day or two. If you want to hear more about the Greens, their leadership and other related topics, consider our free newsletter. It's sent twice a month and keeps you informed on important issues in Canadian politics.

Here are some related articles:

Green Debate Video
An Inconvenient Truth, starring Al Gore (Maybe Gore should become Green Party leader? Great movie on global warming, anyways.)
Boreal Forest Concerns Cause Environmentalists to Pressure Charest

Related articles are archived in the topical categories federal politics, Green Party of Canada, environment, leadership.

posted by lecentre @ 4:05 PM 0 comments links to this post

Mediocre Media 4

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

Welcome to the fourth edition of Mediocre Media, the internet's roundup of media criticism. If you find this interesting and want to participate in Mediocre Media, just read this post on the carnivals we host and how to participate in them.
Of note this carnival is an interview we have with career media critic Yisrael Medad of the Begin Center in Israel. A former writer for the Jerusalem Post, Yisrael has fascinating things to tell us, if in few words.

That said, this edition has plenty of really top quality criticisms and demonstrations of where the media (usually the mainstream media) has gone wrong.

I'm going to begin by highlighting something a little off the usual beaten track: Tam at Tam's Palm (as in the Palm Pilot) has criticism of the tech media for us! He criticizes Blizzard and its bad customer relations.

Beyond that, we again have submissions from our loyal friends on the Israel beat, Soccerdad and Shiloh Muse.
The good ol' soccer coach presents media spinning of Hamas' Qassam attacks on Israelis and a surprisingly (for this carnival) positive bit of Honest Reporting, by the Sunday Times magazine.
Shiloh's favourite regales us with criticisms of the New York Times. The NYT has an agenda, we learn, and that agenda is to rewrite the history of terrorists' attacks on Israelis with civilians. This is going to be one of the media's biggest scandals since the Mohammed al-Dura story in 2001, whom you'll remember as the boy that was shot by Arab terrorists who somehow managed to make world media believe that Mohammed was a victim of "Israeli aggression".

Leaving the political front for a moment, we have new participant Ashok of Writing Up discussing the state of media today along with some historical context. Nice bit of original writing there, Ashok.

Moving back to Politics, returning (after a short break) submitter Jorg of the Atlantic Review lets us know that the oh-so-open-minded German media have blamed the Haditha killings on American rednecks. Ah yes, nothing like some good old fashioned stereotyping/generalizing by the mainstream media. In Germany. Hey, at least it's a German denouncing it!

To be fair, Jorg and his Atlantic Review are a brilliant watchdog group, and whenever I read their pieces, I'm impressed by the quality of the writing (many first-language English speakers I know could learn a thing or two) and the intelligence of the criticisms. Incidentally, Jorg hosts the carnival of German-American relations, so if you have anything on that, go submit your post. The next edition is July 2nd.

Loyal submitter Josh Cohen of Multiple Mentality points out a story about an American Congresswoman breaking the law, and how the media has forgotten it and helped us forget it all to easily. How does he find these stories?? Way to go Josh! I also like this quotation on his blog: "A free society is a place where it's safe to be unpopular." - Adlai Stevenson. Uhh, like Iran?

To conclude the blog submissions part of the carnival, we have more people pointing out just how much the New York Times messes up! Don Surber at Don Surber presents Is it Kos or the New York Times? Don's main problem with the New York's Mediocre Media outlet is that they argue for the US military to be more humane, yet have a problem with the same military force-feeding inmates to keep them alive during hunger strikes. Ah yes, saving a life, how cruel and unusual.

Luckily for us, Don isn't done pointing out the mediocrity of the Times on this one. Oh no! Don "Proud Member of the Mainstream Media" Surber (shocking, I know) also presents NYT's hypocrisy on Gitmo's 'death with dignity'. Top stuff Don!


That having all been presented here is our interview with Yisrael Medad:

1) How did start your career in the realm of media?

In 1964, Betar NY demonstrated against delivering Hawk missiles to Saudi
Arabia and I was the press spokesman.
In 1995, after many media contacts and adventures, I was appointed
director of Israel's Media Watch and got paid to do what I had been
doing in the realm of critiquing the media.

2) What have been your favourite experiences in that realm so far?

Getting the media to admit they're wrong and even correct themselves.

3) What about your least enjoyable experiences?

Watching & hearing media people get all self-righteous about themselves
when they know they're wrong.

4) What are the major forces in media today? That is, who are the
agenda-setters, the power-players, the big "machers" as we say in
Yiddish?

What media? Here or the world?

5) What is the influence of media in politics? How does that influence
exert
itself?

They can cut off your flow of reliable information.

6) What are the mainstream media's greatest contributions to society
today?

Allowing a form of public debate platform.

7) What do you see as their most important shortcomings?

Most media people are not knowledgeable and the rest are biased.

8) Comedian Stephen Colbert, in a recent address to President Bush at an

important gala for the press, joked that "reality has a well-known
liberal
bias" [paraphrase]. Do you believe the media has a left-leaning slant?

I know it.

9) What are the 5 most serious recurring problems in the media's
coverage of
the Israeli-Arab conflict?

a. they really don't believe Israel has a "right" to be here anywhere.
b. Arabs are victims and victims are underdogs and underdogs are right
and need to be helped.
c. Zionism is colonialism.
d. Arabs can violate agreements with impunity.
e. Jews can be killed.

10) What is your opinion on the development of alternative media (niche
magazines, blogs, satellite radio, web forums)?

Good.

11) Do you see alternative media as gaining the type of influence the
mainstream media currently enjoys within say, 10-15 years? Why/not?

Sure. It's halfway there already.

12) What are alternative media's greatest contribution to our public
discourse?

Doing what the mainstream media doesn't = check facts.

13) What are the greatest shortcomings of alternative media?

Too many.

14) How can the mainstream media improve? How about alternative media?

See above.

15) Can you propose some things government might do if media doesn't
take
steps to improve itself?

Allow smaller media firms to get a start.

16) All that having been said, could you summarize for us your view on
the
current state of the media (both mainstream and alternative)

Nope.

17) If you could write for any newspaper/magazine, on any topic, what
would
it be? Why?

An op-ed in NYT on the Jewish communities in yesha in my language terms.

18) Any advice for newcomers to the world of media?

Take a deep breath.


If you want to keep up to date with our Mediocre Media carnival and other media criticism, consider our free newsletter. It's sent twice a month and keeps you informed on important issues in Canadian politics.
Alternately, consider some related reading (links below).

Related articles are archived in the topical categories foreign affairs, media, politics.

posted by lecentre @ 11:59 AM 1 comments links to this post

An Inconvenient Truth, starring Al Gore: Movie of the Year

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

An Incovenient Truth is the best movie I have ever seen (and I've seen more than my fair share). Al Gore presents climate change, the science behind it, proves it, and does so with humour and clarity. And for my fellow Canadians accustomed to david Suzuki's warnings that tomorrow, the world will melt or freeze or both, this movie is uplifting and inspirational, rather than depressing. The website's name doesn't reflect that (climatecrisis.org), but trust me, this is THE MOVIE OF THE YEAR (and of the generation, quite frankly). Every Canadian school needs to make this mandatory viewing.



Please see also ondortcommeunebuche.com (for my fellow Quebeckers). Sign their petition to protect Quebec's boreal forests.

If you want to keep up with our commentary on the environment and the Green Party's leadership race (including some really great interviews with leadership hopefuls David Chernushenko and Elizabeth May), consider our free newsletter. It's short, digestible and sent out twice a month.

Related articles are archived in the topical categories global warming, global warming (external link; technorati), foreign affairs, environment, national security.

posted by lecentre @ 12:50 AM 0 comments links to this post

Green Party Leadership Debate Notes

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

I attended the Green Party's leadership debate yesterday night, contested between leadership candidates David Chernushenko and Elizabeth May. I noted what they were saying along with my impressions. Towards the end, I got some pictures of the candidates and of the debate moderator, though I unfortunately missed a point where they raised each other's hands in the air at the end of the debate (slow shutter speed).
At any rate, here are my notes on the Green Party's leadership candidates' debate that took place last night, Wednesday, June the 14th, here in Montreal.

As I noted in my earlier comments on the debate, I arrived late, so my notes kind of pick up in the middle of things. I hope you'll all (two of you) forgive me. Also, just a preliminary note before beginning: I had difficulty hearing Elizabeth May, as I was sitting at the back of the room and she spoke softly. That's why you may see longer quotations and notes concerning Chernushenko; I'm not favouring one candidate over the other.

Anyways, in response to some question about the fiscal imbalance, Elizabeth May responded (translation follows): "La question importante n'est pas le desequilibre fiscal, mais le desequilibre entre les pauvres." ("The important question is not the fiscal imbalance, but the imbalance between the poor and the rich.") I didn't have a tape recorder, so I'm paraphrasing (I'll try and find the exact words in the video later), but this seemed to show May (M) has sensitivity to a socialist politic similar to the NDP. This trend would show up again later.

The next question asked the candidates for their opinions on Senate reform. Both opposed it.

M said that we needed a proportional representation system (as opposed to the current "first-past-the-post" system which leaves the party of losing candidates with nothing more than funding; millions of votes could be won nationally and no seat be won... which is the Green Party's current situation), and that that was a more important Parliamentary reform.

Chernushenko (C) replied by noting first that the question was a constitutional issue. The importance of that note followed when C said that it would be difficult to effect reform of the Senate.
C also stated his support for Canada's upper house of Parliament, and proposed that the really important reform that needed to be brought to the Hill in Ottawa was to moderate the PMO's power. He noted it wasn't an attack on Harper: "Cela a commence avec Trudeau." ("It started with Trudeau.")
Chernushenko's problem was that (backbench) MPs didn't have sufficient power. "Tout
est deja decide. Le whip decide comment ils vont vote." ("Everything is already decided. The whip decides how they [MPs] will vote.")

In her rebuttal, M chose not to rebutt, but rather to agree and said that in majority circumstances, Canada was governed like a dictatorship.

C's non-rebuttal rebuttal essentially said that the Senate was important, and would hopefully limit Stephen Harper's plans.

Following this, the next question asked whether candidates would put an end to Quebec's forays into foreign affairs, a federal jurisdiction as written in the constitution. Both candidates flip-flopped around and tried to please the crowd here. It wasn't too impressive.

Chernushenko: Il y a "de plus en plus de missions qui sont en parallel." (There are "more and more [trade and other foreign] missions going on in parallel between the federal and Quebec government.") Then he continued to say that this was acceptable because foreigners understood who was speaking for whom. A possible argument, but his answer was too wishy-washy for my tastes. I don't have a position on the issue, but I expect a potential Prime Minister or at least Parliamentary Party leader to take a position.

May: What are each group's objectives? Il n'y a pas "de dommages a la reputation du Canada." ("There are no damages from this to Canada's reputation.") People understand. I didn't know this was about Canada's reputation to begin with! Less confusing the Chernushenko, though.

This question probably caught both candidates a little offguard, and I get the impression they aren't exceedingly familiar with Quebec politics.

My mind wandered at this point as I fiddled with camera settings and considered how to present the debate here at Centrerion Canadian Politics. When I snapped back to reality, David Chernushenko and Elizabeth May were debating leadership of the Green Party, and how they would get an MP elected in the next election.

M advocated a mass-marketing approach, while Chernushenko wanted to do things on a more mano-a-mano basis. I liked both answers, because I think one wouldn't succeed without the other. The mass marketing gives an aura of stature, while the personal approach is the closer that seals the deal and concretizes votes and memberships.

May: I'll be in the debate, and that'll be a breakthrough, "un point tournant." (Literally, "a turning point."

Chernushenko: We need to build a party. With intensity:"Il faut attirer plus de monde. [...] Il faut savoir comment parler aux medias. C'est un question de communication. "On n'a pas encore appris [messy notes here, C said something like "a expliquer"] ce que c'est que d'etre vert en 15 seconds." The general point C made is that he would recruit people on a more personal basis, and noted that the Greens still haven't made an "elevator speech" that explains what being Green is in 15 seconds or less. Sounded like savvy marketing to me, if a bit verbose. I liked the emotion.

M rebuttal: We would have conferences to gain citizens support. We need to become influential and have a strong media and PR strategy.

C rebuttal: Let's get out of our circle of comfort. Il faut aller "aux synagogues, chambres de commerce, aller a Bay Street." That way, when the election comes, the electorate will have heard the Green Party's platform.

Another question on leadership followed. I'll have more notes from the leadership debate posted tomorrow (along with pictures). As a reminder, click the link above (video) to go see Green Party's French language leadership debate at CPAC. It's free!!

If you want to keep up to date with the Green Party's leadership race, consider subscribing to our free newsletter. It's sent out twice a month and keeps you informed on important issues in Canadian politics.

Alternately, consider some related reading from the archives.

Related articles are archived in the topical categories federal politics, Green Party, leadership.

posted by lecentre @ 6:43 PM 0 comments links to this post

Tangled Bank Science Carnival

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

We're hosting the Tangled Bank science carnival's next edition. Also, be sure to stop by CCP tomorrow for the fourth edition of Mediocre Media, and the fourth edition of teh Carnival of Centrism!

Of course, you can participate in any or all of these carnivals!

Related articles are archived in the topical categories carnivals, science, media, centrism.

posted by lecentre @ 6:40 PM 0 comments links to this post

Liberal MP Cotler Backs Rae In Liberal Leadership Race

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

Liberal MP for Mount-Royal (my riding :)) Irwin Cotler has come out in support of Bob Rae in the Liberal Party of Canada's leadership race.

With any luck, I'll get an interview with Cotler to discuss the Liberals race. As a reminder, the deadline to become a member of the Liberal Party of Canada who is eligible to vote in the party's leadership election is coming up fast.

Consider subscribing to our free newsletter. It's sent twice a month and keeps you informed on important issues in Canadian politics.
Alternately, consider some related reading (links below).

Related articles are archived in the topical categories federal politics, Liberal Party of Canada, leadership.

posted by lecentre @ 2:41 PM 0 comments links to this post

Green Party Leadership Debate Video

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

The Green Party leadership candidates debated last night here in Montreal.

CPAC taped the event, and has a video of the debate with English translation, as well as a video of the Green debate in the original French.

I'll have my notes and commentary from the debate up later today. People can submit questions for the Green Party's upcoming English language leadership candidates' debate to be held in Calgary at the Green Party of Canada's website. Note that the leadership race's latest entrant, Jim Fannon did not show up, so that the debate was held between David Chernushenko and Elizabeth May.

The Green Party's French language debate was an interesting night (what I saw of it; I had a family get-together earlier in the night and so arrived about 25 minutes into the debate), though the two leadership candidates didn't really "debate" so much. In fact, at a point late in the debate, the leadership candidates recognized they were mostly in agreement...

On a related note, in the following few days, I expect to post the interviews with May and Chernushenko. If you want to be told about the interviews when they're published, consider subscribing to our free newsletter.

Here are some related articles:

Green Party Leadership Interview Contest - People suggested questions for our interviews with the leadership hopefuls
An update on the contest
The constitutional dilemma of the Greens winning a seat and losing official party status - May has since denied the speculation she wouldn't run candidates in every riding in Canada.

Related articles are archived in the topical categories federal politics, Green Party Canada, leadership, debate, , Video.

posted by lecentre @ 12:42 PM 0 comments links to this post

Damn Accents!!!

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

How do you get accents to work with Blogger? Why can't I publish normal French accents? ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH

posted by lecentre @ 3:23 PM 0 comments links to this post

AFP's Gaza Explosion, Hamas Coverage Mediocre

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

The AFP's coverage of Friday's explosion on a Gaza beach and the subsequent end to a supposed Hamas uniltaeral ceasefire with Israel (I know, what ceasefire?) have gone published in countless newspapers worldwide. I've criticized Montreal's La Presse for republishing the AFP coverage of the Gaza beach explosion story verbatim, and then publishing a half-baked correction a few days later, where they only implicitly acknowledge that what they published wasn't fact, as they criticize the Israeli version of events.

Hamas has had no ceasefire with Israel, has been launching Qassam rockets against Sderot and other Israeli towns, and may actually be responsible for the explosion on the Gaza beach. Can you say mediocre media?

Here's a letter to the editor I sent to Montreal's French language daily, La Presse.

Votre journal présente habituellement les choses de façon posée et précise. J’ai donc été franchement surpris et déçu de vos récentes bévues dans le dossier Israelo-Arabe. A l’avenir, vous aurez le devoir de lire et de relire les articles de l’AFP publiés au sujet de ce conflit.

Ces derniers jours, vous avez publié intégrallement des textes de l’AFP présentant une opinion – que l’explosion sur une plage de Gaza était le résultat d’obus israéliens – comme étant un fait. Pourtant, la lumière n’a pas encore était faite sur le sujet, comme le démontre l’article d’Agnès Gruda d’aujourd’hui.
L’erreur est d’autant plus grossière vu l’effort maladroit qui a été fait pour rectifier la situation : vous avez présenté l’article de Mme. Gruda qui met en cause la version Israélienne des faits, pour reconnaître ainsi implicitement l’erreur des précédents articles. Il aurait été préférable de simplement publier une correction là où avait paru l’article le jour précédent…

Malheureusement, vos bévues ne se limitent pas au sujet de la causalité de l’explosion sur la plage. Vous reprenez encore des propos érronés de l’AFP voulant que le Hamas vient de rompre une trêve avec Israel, trêve dont la longueur s’allongit de jour en jour dans votre journal d’ailleurs, passant des 18 mois aux deux ans comme si de rien n’était. En réalité, les terroristes du Hamas (pardon, «militants»… euh, non, repardon, «activistes»), tiraient des roquettes Qassam sur des villages Israéliens depuis bien avant l’explosion sur la plage de Gaza.
C’est un fait au sujet duquel vous devez être au courant puisque plusieurs articles sur Cyberpresse en témoignent. Ainsi, dans un article daté du 1er Juin, on apprend que "Des éléments indisciplinés du Hamas étaient, semble-t-il, impliqués dans le tir de ces roquettes." L’AFP fait encore un effort de blanchissement du Hamas en citant des membres d’un autre groupe qui auraient revendiqués l’attaque. Plus tôt, on avait rattaché deux citations pour suggérer que la Hamas n’avait fait que construire la bombe, alors que les responsables Israéliens ont indiqué qu’ils l’avaient en fait tiré. Oublions convenablement que la charte du Hamas cherche à établir un état sur toute la «Palestine historique», ce qui veut donc dire anéantir Israel.

De toutes les façons, une «houdna» est une trêve Koranique qui prend exemple du prophète Mohammed, ce qui consiste à dire qu’il est permis de déclarer une trêve si l’ennemi a le dessus et qu’il faut du temps pour reprendre des forces. Or, la barrière de séparation qu’a construite l’Israel ainsi que sa multiplication d’actions anti-terroristes ont fait la vie dure aux membres du Hamas et autres groupes terroristes. De plus, selon plusieurs sources, les forces policières et militaires Israéliennes empêchent des dizaines d’attentats de se produire à chaque jour.
Bref, si le Hamas a réduit (et non pas arrêté) son nombre d’attaques anti-Israéliens récemment, c’est parce que l’Israel lui fait la vie dure et parce qu’il est occupé avec des affaires d’état depuis qu’il a pris le pouvoir.

Par ailleurs, dans le même article de l’AFP du 1er Juin, on trouve un autre fait érroné. Les roquettes Qassam ne sont pas nommés pour les Brigades Ezzedina al-Qassam, faction au sein du Hamas, mais bien pour Ezzedine al-Qassam lui-même. Al-Qassam était un membre des Frères musulmans au début du dernier siècle (organisation dont le Hamas est une branche) et qui a prêché et fait le jihad contre les Britanniques et les Sionistes.

L’AFP est reconnu pour son reportage biaisé du conflit Israelo-Arabe (la plupart des reporters de l’AFP qui font des reportages sur le sujet sont arabes, d’ailleurs), et il vous incombe que ce biais ne soit pas reproduit lorsque vous publiez leurs articles. Mesdames et messieurs de La Presse, je vous somme d’être plus vigilants.

p.s. Comparez l’article du premier Juin de l’AFP (http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20060601/CPACTUALITES/606011454&SearchID=73247650714660) a celui-ci de Ha’aretz : http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/722197.html
.


If you enjoyed the post, take 30 seconds to subscribe to our free newsletter.
Alternately, consider some suggested posts (links below) or pick your own reading from the archives.

Here are some related articles:

Another French Letter to the Editor responding to a terrorist apologist
Canada's 'provocation' of Islamist terrorists
Day of the Qassams

Related articles are archived in the topical categories foreign affairs, Israel, Hamas, terrorism, media.

posted by lecentre @ 3:11 PM 0 comments links to this post

Boreal Forest Concerns Cause Environmentalists to Pressure Quebec

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

On Dort Comme Une Buche/Sleeping Like A Log is a Quebec environmental-lobby group with an aim to protect more of Canada's forests, particularly Quebec's. As it happens, less than 4% of Quebec's forests are currently protected, and less than 9% of Canada's forests are protected.

By comparison, more than a third of Costa Rica's forest is protected, and over 18% of Australia's forest is under protection. A commission recently found that 12% of the boreal forest, at the very least, had to be protected before 2010.

Sleeping Like A Log is collecting signatures to its petition asking Quebec's government to protect more of the boreal forest. It also asks that two areas already pointed out to the government and currently under "development pressures" be prioritized. The petition currently has almost 200,000 signatures.

Related articles in the categories of: provincial politics, Quebec, environment, forest.

posted by lecentre @ 1:26 AM 0 comments links to this post

Canada's "Provocation" of Islamist Terrorists

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

Canada's been "provoking" [Islamic] terrorists, according to all the self-flagellating luminaries writing letters to La Presse's editor. Having studied and read a bit more than these fools, I'm in a position to explain what's really "provoking" these terrorists. This will also serve to refute the noxious, nonsensical claim that somehow Canada's actions - and those of other Western countries where similar discourse on "provocation" applies - have made Canada "deserve" terrorism.

The first thing that needs to be understood is the Islamic terrorist's mindset. In his/her (yes, there have been female terrorists) view, the Koran must be taken literally.

Amongst other things then, jihad must be waged against non-Muslims with the final goal of imposing Islamic law, or Sharia, worldwide. This will convert the remaining non-Muslim part of the world that is Dar-al-Harb, the House of War, to Dar-al-Islam, the House of Islam.

In order to achieve this, non-monotheists must be killed or converted to Islam. Depending on which passages are highlighted elsewhere, monotheists such as Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians can either be tolerated as second-class citizens, or Dhimmis, or else they too must be killed/converted.

This all relates to Canada and the West's supposed "provocation" of Islamist terrorists as follows. Regardless of the West's treatment of Muslim or Arab nations, Canadians and the West truly provoke Islamist terrorists by the very fact of not adhering to the Muslim faith. It's that simple. Further Western non-alignment with literal readings of the Koran exacerbate this, the real provocation.

That Muslims are ruled by non-Muslim governments is a terrible thing, in terrorists' eyes, because they literally interpret passages of the Koran advocating the contrary. That freedom of religion (or lack thereof) exists in the West is another awful instance of Western non-alignment with literalist interpretation. If it were up to the al-Qaeda, Hamas and company, Islam would be imposed upon all non-monotheists, including Pagans, Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Animists etc. When Osama and his ilk rant about Western decadence and the 'nakedness' of women in bathing suits, you're actually catching a rare glimpse into what really bothers these people. That is, Westerners not following a literal reading of Sharia.

So it doesn't really matter if Canada fights in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else that President Bush has been "provoking" Islamist terrorists. The Israeli-Arab conflict? That's a convenient bandwagon to jump on. These are all populist excuses that help with recruitment of new terrorists by showing the so-called "martyrdom" of Muslims at the hands of the West, their supposed "oppression" by vile "Crusaders" (notice the religious language sneaking out). It's easier to get someone inflamed at being attacked and then to gradually have them adopt an extremist, literal reading of the Koran, than to have them jump right into the whole international jihad ideology.

I'm just going to digress to point out that the "Crusaders" have done much worse in in Canada, Asia and elsewhere. The First Nations of Canada have been subjugated, humiliated and attempts have been made to commit cultural genocide against them. (Canada's government, in concert with various churches, operated so-called residential schools that Amerindian children were forced to go to, and which tried to eradicate their "indianness." The lawsuits are plentiful.) Britain waged war on China to be allowed to export opium to the Chinese, for crying out loud! Why aren't they strapping on belts of TNT to blow up pizzerias or piloting hijacked planes into buildings? They aren't reading the Koran literally.

The reality is this: Canada and the West provoke Islamist terrorists by not adhering to a literal reading of Sharia. Until we all convert to Islam (or the non-monotheists amongst us, at the very least) and do all the other things "required" by the Islamists' reading of Sharia, we will be provoking the terrorists. Truly provoking the terrorists.

If you thought this was a good read, then take 30 seconds to subscribe to our free newsletter. It's sent twice a month and only features our top content over the past two weeks.

Linked below is related reading, either in article format or archival format.

• Why some Muslims hate the West
• Day of the Qassams Israel is also "provoking" terrorists
• Letter to La Presse in response to Dwyer More on provocation (in French)

Related articles are archived in the topical categories national security, terrorism, Islamist, religion, Western Civilization, provocation.

posted by lecentre @ 11:50 PM 2 comments links to this post

Liberal Leadership: Deadline To Join Liberal Party

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

The deadline to become a member of the Liberal Party of Canada who can vote for a leadership candidate is coming up. So says the Liberal website:

"Membership Cutoff for Delegate Election Meetings
Saturday, July 1, 2006
Last day to purchase a Liberal Party of Canada membership to be eligible to vote for delegates to the Leadership and Biennial Convention"

I'd like to influence the decision with a vote, except that
a) I don't feel it's worth my money, and
b) I don't want to be associated with the Liberal Party of Canada. I used to really respect it, but I find the party is wishy-washy in its support of Israel, the anti-American curents in its grassroots disgust me, and of course its highest echelons have been tainted by scandal.

Sad times for the federal opposition...

If you enjoyed the post, take 30 seconds to subscribe to our free newsletter.
Alternately, consider some reading from the archives.

Related articles are archived in the topical categories federal politics, canadian federal politics, Liberal Party of Canada.

posted by lecentre @ 2:47 PM 2 comments links to this post

RSS How-to User Guide and Explanation

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

Here's a how-to user guide for RSS (Really Simply Syndication), which I think you, dear readers, will be interested in. RSS helps you to easily keep current news sources (MSM, blogs, etc.) of your choosing.

This how-to guide has two parts. First, I'll explain how to use RSS to get all your news in one place. Second, I'll show you how to create an 'RSS feed' that allows others to get news from your own site via RSS. The first part is my own original content, the second comes from Yaro Starak.

I'd like to thank Yaro Starak of Entrepreneur's Journey and Small Business Branding for graciously allowing me to publish a copy (too long to call it an extract) of his guide here. The man is a small business luminary whom you should read if you have an interest in the topic.
Note: I'd also like to acknowledge PC World's article on RSS as a (secondary) resource that helped me write this. I haven't copied anything from there though.

First, let's consider how RSS works.

1. A site creates an RSS feed. The RSS feed transforms the site's latest news items into a computer code known as XML.
2. People who are interested in the site's content use RSS to sign up for these latest items (in geek terms 'syndicate the feed') as a newsletter form. Instead of the newsletter being transmitted through email, though, the XML is sent to the person.
3. To decode the XML back into human language, the person has a 'newsreader' program. The XML gets to the newsreader and the newsreader decodes it back into real words.

It all works like a telephone. The site speaks its new content into the phone's mouthpiece. The phone turns it into an electronic code. Finally, the person at the other end uses their phone to decode the electronic signal back into real language.

That said, let's get on with the how-to guide/tutorial. Here's Yaro's how-to on the topic:

The best way to learn is by practice and example so let me tell you exactly how I use RSS.

Feed Reading Software

At the moment I use RSSOwl which is software you install on to your computer. Like all software there is a learning curve to using RSSOwl however once you have subscribed to your first feed it becomes very easy. If you get really stuck try the help menu or check the website out for guidelines.

There are other feed reading software programs out there and a Google search for RSS reader will bring up many options. I tried three different programs and stuck with RSSOwl because it was free, light weight and functional for what I wanted. There are prettier and more functional feed readers out there and I’ll leave it up to you to choose your favourite.

Web Based Feed Reading

With a standalone software feed reader like RSSOwl you have to be on the computer you installed the software to in order to have access to your feeds. Because of this limitation many people choose to use a web based feed reader and the most popular is Bloglines. Bloglines works much like feed reading software except because it is entirely based on the Internet you can access your syndicated feeds online from any computer connected to the web. You can also share your feeds with other people or search other people’s feed lists to see what is popular.

Subscribing to a Blog

To continue with my example…of course I subscribe to my own feed, the RSS of this blog. At the top right corner you will see an orange RSS link button. To subscribe to my feed all you do is copy and paste that link into feed reading software or a web based reader like bloglines. You may also have to name the feed and strangely enough this feed is called "Entrepreneur’s Journey". The RSS feed link for this site looks like this - http://feeds.feedburner.com/EntrepreneursJourney - and if you click it you will get the XML output of this blog. That’s the stuff I told you about that you don’t really need to understand, but take a look by clicking the link if you are interested. Note that I use a special third party service called FeedBurner that adds extra features to my feed output and most importantly it provides me with statistics on how many people subscribe to my blog.

All blogs will have a link which you can subscribe to. It might be called Atom, or RSS, or simply Syndicate, but they all do the same thing. The reason there are so many names is because there are different standards to create web syndication services (much like the old BETA vs VHS video format competition). At the moment it appears that RSS is certainly winning the standards war so you will mostly see the orange RSS links everywhere.

Syndication is for More than Just Blogs

Blogs certainly started the syndication craze but it is well and truly breaking out now. I wouldn’t call it mainstream just yet since not many people know how to use it but most of the big web companies are making subscription feeds available for almost any content. Chances are if you are reading an article from a big site you can subscribe to a feed that distributes those articles. Just look for that RSS symbol.

The RSS symbol in question is in CCP's left sidebar and it says "feed" on it. Alternate to using the RSSOwl product Yaro mentioned, you can also use Bloglines, Google or Yahoo's RSS readers to easily subscribe to Centrerion Canadian Politics' RSS feed, and you can see buttons to add the feed to your Bloglines, Google and Yahoo accounts right above the 'feed' button.

To recap: RSS allows you to get all your RSS-publishing sources to keep you up to date with their latest content. You get to choose the sources. Once you've decided to subscribe, you can just seek out the RSS button, and add it to your reader. Finally, check the reader as often as you want, to read the feeds you've subscribed to. It's like getting a bunch of newsletters, really... so perhaps you might be interested in our email newsletter subscription. You'll get CCP's best posts, twice a month. Of course, we have a simple yet strong privacy policy that says we won't share your information with anyone.

Related articles in the categories of: website development, readership, RSS:

Reader Loyalty Rewards Program
Our Privacy Policy
User guide to Del.icio.us

posted by lecentre @ 9:50 PM 0 comments links to this post

Day of the Kassams: Hamas Analysis by Elliot Chodoff

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

The following is a commentary on the boiling rivalry in the Middle East between the terrorists of Hamas and of Fatah. It was written by friends (Elliot Chodoff) at the Middle East on Target think tank, who graciously allow us to reprint the columns.

Read on for an expert perspective on Hamas' bombardment of Israelis with Qassam (spelt Kassam by Chodoff) rockets, and the relation to the situation of the Arabs popularly but erroneously known as "Palestinians." (The error is that the term doesn't only apply to Arabs. Jews can also be Palestinians, if they were living in British-mandate Palestine and had Palestinian passports.)


Day of the Kassams

by Elliot Chodoff

At last count, 25 Kassam rockets have landed in Southern Israel since Saturday night, seriously wounding one Israeli. Many more have been fired that have landed in Palestinian territory, as these weapons are far from accurate and their terrorist shooters are poorly trained at best.

The escalation in rocket fire, combined with an unprecedented 97 terrorist attack warnings recorded by Israeli security services, follows the Hamas declaration of the termination of the cease fire announced some 16 months ago. [They are] Ostensibly responding to the explosion on a Gaza beach that killed 7 Palestinians on Friday, and the elimination of Jamal Abu Samhadana, who topped Israel’s Most Wanted Terrorist list, by an IAF [Israeli Air Force] air strike on Thursday night.

It matters little to Hamas and the rest of the Palestinian terrorist organizations that the Gaza beach explosion was most likely an errant Kassam (which should lay to rest the oft repeated claim in the Western media, that the Kassam is a "primitive" – and therefore not dangerous – weapon) and not an IDF [Israeli Defense Force; the umbrella name for all of Israel's military] fired shell. Nor does the fact that Samhadana was a terrorist wanted by Israel for years of lethal attacks against civilians in any way reduce the calls for revenge by the terrorist organizations that see him as a hero and martyr. The time is ripe for escalation of violence, and any excuse will do the trick for Hamas.

Two related issues are the underlying causes of the increase in terrorist violence today. The first is the threat of civil war between Hamas and Fatah that has threatened to erupt over the past few weeks. On again off again surges in internecine violence, particularly in Gaza, have left casualties and threats of revenge as the two groups maneuver for power, their traditional positions having been reversed with Hamas' recent electoral victory. Fatah, now in opposition, maintains an advantage in firepower, as Hamas holds the position of legislative authority.

The second issue was introduced recently as Fatah jockeys to regain its lost position. The delicate balance of power and authority was upset by PA Chairman Abu Mazen's threat to hold a referendum, against Hamas' wishes, on a plan to establish sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza, tacitly recognizing some of the prior agreements with Israel. Tacit recognition of anything related to Israel is anathema to Hamas, and the referendum threat is a direct challenge to its authority. An attempt by Abu Mazen and his Fatah followers to implement the referendum is likely to be violently opposed by Hamas and could be the spark that would ignite the primed powder keg in the West Bank and Gaza.

The Hamas solution, as is frequently the case with terrorist organizations, is to escalate the violence against Israel. From the Hamas perspective, violence now produces a win-win situation. The simple act of ending the cease fire and launching dozens of rockets puts the organization back in the headlines as the primary fighter against the Jewish State, avenging the deaths blamed on Israel, regardless of [who] the true perpetrators [are]. If a large number of Israelis are killed or injured, so much the better. And if the attacks instigate an IDF military response, which is sure to be the case if civilian casualties mount or life in the town of Sderot continues to be disrupted, the conflict between Fatah and Hamas will be papered over as no group can afford to remain on the sidelines of an IDF operation.

In the long run a Fatah-Hamas battle may be inevitable, but the current escalation may delay that eruption as Israeli security requirements necessitate IDF intervention despite the political consequences on the Palestinian side of the fence.


If you enjoyed the post, take 30 seconds to subscribe to our free newsletter.
Alternately, consider some suggested posts (links below) or pick your own reading from the archives.

Here are some related articles:

Deadly Anti-semitism - Also from MEoT
Real Palestinian Terrorist Threats
Why the New Left Hates the West

Related articles are archived in the topical categories Israel, Hamas, terrorism, Middle East, Qassam.

posted by lecentre @ 1:38 PM 0 comments links to this post

Purchasing Power of Canadians - Correction

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

I recently published a theory of mine as to why I considered purchasing power to be declining in Canadian households. I showed the post to my economics professor who corrected me. I'm a bit embarassed about the corrections actually, since I should have known these things from his class... Oh well! Anyways, here are corrections to my opinion and theory on Canadians' declining purchasing power, as measured by the declining percentage of GDP I thought we could buy.

I've copy pasted the text of my professor's email. The smart, helpful man in question is Mr. Philippe Ghayad of the Dawson College economics department. Generally, he points out problems with my non-standard definition of purchasing power, shows that Canadians' incomes have been rising by other measures than the ones I referenced (another question of definitions then, I suppose), and discusses the federal government's fiscal policy.

Here's what Mr. Ghayad wrote:

1) The following websites have numbers on quarterly and yearly hourly
compensation changes and weekly average salary. You'll notice that the
numbers are almost always above the annual inflation rate (2%). I think
another report by Statcan should be out on June 8th to update these numbers
with more detail.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/060426/d060426b.htm
http://0-www.biblio.eureka.cc.mercury.concordia.ca/Biblio/Frames/FrameMain.asp

2) Purchasing Power is usually defined as the amount of goods and services a
given amount of money can buy (ex: 100$). It does not really deal with how
much the average Canadian can purchase of the GDP given his/her income [ed's note: in the theory mentioned above, I defined purchasing power as the percentage of GDP Canadians could purchase given their income].

Even though that is an interesting indicator it can cause issues:

1. consumers do not consume or cannot consume some of the Canadian GDP (ex:
   production of coal, asbestos, international services...). So the indicator
   would be biased downward.


2. imports are subtracted from the GDP but Canadian consumers definitely
   want to consume imports (computers, cars, clothes...).


3. If the Canadian Government decides to provide less services to its
   citizens, then GDP would fall (GDP = Private Consumption + Business Investment + and Government Spending) and this this would raise your Purchasing Power indicator.
   (ex: Period 1: income = 50 GDP= 100. Your PP indicator would be 50/100 or
   50%. If the Government decides to cut back in Period 2 and we'll assume
   there is not change to income we could now have income = 50 and GDP = 75.
   Your PP indicator is now 67%. That is, we can now purchase 67% of all
   goods and services produced where as before it was 50%. Are we better off
   even though the government cut back on services?)


4. If the Government is cutting back are we gaining somewhere else?
   [For example, do we have] a lower tax level, which increases our disposable income and possibly our savings rate?
   [Is the government] lowering the deficit or getting out of a deficit (which would lower thenational debt and possibly decrease future taxes or increase future
   government spending)? Note: this is why the federal government did cut back
   in the 1990's. Our debt to GDP ratio was close to 70%!


5. Finally, the government cutting back in certain services might create room
   for private enterprises. They might be more efficient than the public
   sector at providing certain goods and services (Jean Charest is trying or
   tried to steer Quebec towards this...not an easy thing to do!).

Remember, a government is not like a firm. Its goal is not to maximize profits (or surpluses) but to maximize strategic votes. If a government decides to cut back on services it is not to maximize surpluses but to probably get out of a difficult situation. [However,] if a reduction in spending is not agreed [to] by the general public, then the political opponents (left: NDP and right: Conservative [ed's note: the time period in question is the 90s; the Conservatives, under various party banners, were in opposition at the time]) can rule for a vote of non-confidence on the budget in order to bring down the party in power. This did not occur in the 1990s since the parties probably realized that the Canadian economy was struggling.

While I agree with most of the criticisms, I can't say I accept them without reservation.

First, even if Canadians' income has been increasing at 2%, this still leaves a difference of 1% annual growth with GDP.

Second, GDP can be calculated by summing up Canadians' incomes, and this is theoretically supposed to be equal to other measures. Therefore, though Canadians do want to purchase imports, by considering GDPi (the formula that calculates GDP by summing everyone's income) it becomes evident that Canadians ought to be able to purchase 100% of GDP, since they earned an equivalent amount.

I think that the problem here is an issue of what is associated to the term "purchasing power". In Professor Ghayad's case, it is the purchasing power of money, of currency. As I see things, my definition considers the purchasing power of people. Of course, I don't see one as superior to the other. Lacking a compelling argument to the contrary, though, I stand by my initial definition.

Third, income couldn't be 50 when GDP is 100 to begin with, unless we agree that there is a strange disconnect between GDP and wages. As to government spending, if it were to fall 25$, Canadians may have had a tax break worth 25$, the government may have had a surplus of 25$ that it will spend in the future, or perhaps something else explains the drop in services. I think that's what my prof said, but his paragraph concluded with "are we better off with fewer services," so I'm answering: "We could be." At any rate, as the possible scenarios I've just suggested show, we aren't necessarily worse off with fewer government services. Indeed, Libertarians argue that less government is better.

That said, I do think we're better off if we can purchase a greater percentage of GDP, because that suggests we're dealing with the disconnect problem.

Finally, though consumers might not be able to directly consume things such as coal, we pay for them indirectly as firms include them in the prices of finished goods they sell us. Consider for example how the price of oil affects the price of anything requiring transport.

To conclude, my economics professor has shown that there are problems with what I wrote about the disconnect between GDP and Canadians wages. It may not be as big as I initially asserted. My definition of purchasing power in the context of GDP's disconnect with wages doesn't correspond with what most people consider purchasing power, so arguing that 'purchasing power' is declining is something of a misnomer. I should say rather than "GDP purchasing power of incomes" is declining.

It's an interesting debate, at any rate, and you can expect me to follow up with Mr. Ghayad about the questions his reply has fuelled.

If you enjoyed the post, take 30 seconds to subscribe to our free newsletter.
Alternately, consider some suggested posts (links below) or pick your own reading from the archives.

Here are some related articles:

NAFTA's impact on Canadian remuneration
Joe Volpe's supporters have great purchasing power!
Karl Marx, Carrolyn Parrish Quip of the Day

Related articles are archived in the topical categories economics, purchasing power, GDP.

posted by lecentre @ 9:59 PM 0 comments links to this post

Back Saturday Night

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

I've had a couple of internet problems and time-consuming issues. Regular analysis and commentary (from my part, anyways) will be back tomorrow night. My apologies for the inconvenience. In the meantime, I encourage you to read fellow Centrerion Kerry's excellent guide to Western Separatism (below) or to read some of the other recent posts, such as my explanation of why some Muslims hate the West.

posted by lecentre @ 8:17 PM 0 comments links to this post

A Guide to Western Separatism

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

This is one of a series of information resources here at Centrerion (and my first post!). Enjoy!

History

The movement to separate Canada's western provinces from the rest of the country has, unlike the Quebec separatist movement, no one unified front or even a particular point in history that is thought to have started it. Separatist feelings were present in the West leading up to the Trudeau government's implementation of the National Energy Plan in the 1980s. It was at this point that support for the idea reached all-time highs (that have never been matched since), but Trudeau (and his successor John Turner) was eventually defeated by Brian Mulroney, which led to a decrease in support for separation in the West.

Mulroney's tenure, however, was not known for being particularly "West-friendly," and led to the creation of the Reform Party. Under the leadership of Preston Manning, Reform advocated a stronger voice for Western Canada within Confederation. Once it had secured seats and nearly earned the rank of Official Opposition in 1993 (the party won three fewer seats than the separatist from Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois), it appeared as though the regionally-based parliamentary representation was enough to quell popular support for separation or secession.



Support for Western separatism rose once again under the Liberal majority government of 1993 to 2006, especially after it was discovered that the party had been accused of corruption and fraud. When the party narrowly defeated the newly unified Conservative Party of Canada in the 2004 general election, popular support for separation was estimated to be as high as 40 per cent.

During the 2006 Canadian federal election campaign, a Conservative campaign manager was forced to resign after stating that he and his colleagues would be working on Alberta separation campaigns if the Liberals won the election.

The Conservatives' 2006 electoral victory is unlikely to increase support for separation in Canada's western provinces, though those in the province who are sympathetic towards the separatist cause are said to be paying close attention to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's actions and analyzing them accordingly. It is expected that any alleged mishandling of Western Canadian issues by the Harper government will be seen as a major betrayal of the Conservatives' Western electoral base, as Harper himself is an MP from Western Canada (though he was born and raised in Toronto).

Political History

As mentioned, there is no one united Western separatist front. Several parties have represented the cause in several provinces over the past few decades, but only one individual has been elected to a legislative assembly. Gordon Kesler was elected to the Alberta legislature in 1980 as a member of the Western Canadian Concept Party, which supported the union of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the Territories as a nation sovereign from Canada.

Several other provincial and federal parties are Western separatist in nature, including: the Western Block Party, the Separation Party of Alberta and the Western Independence Party of Saskatchewan. A new party, to be called the Western Canada Party, is reported to be in the works.

The lack of a united front has undoubtedly led to vote-splitting among Western Canadians who are interested in either leaving Canada or negotiating new terms of association. The number of parties that exist are indicative of the number of factions within the Western separatist movement.

Strategy

The numerous ideas surrounding Western separation include:

The provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba (and often the territories) uniting to form one sovereign nation

The Western provinces and territories negotiating sovereignty-association with the federal government

The Western provinces and territories leaving Canada to become part of the United States of America

Certain Western provinces or territories leaving Canada to become distinct, independent nations or republics

Related Sites

www.projectalberta.com
www.republicofalberta.com
www.separationalberta.com
www.westernblockparty.com
www.westerncanadaparty.com



If you enjoyed the post, take 30 seconds to subscribe to our free newsletter.
Alternately, consider some suggested posts (links below) or pick your own reading from the archives.

Here are some related articles:

Heritage Alberta's site about the election of the first Albertan separatist to the provincial legislature
Separatism and Western Canadian Culture
Western provinces consider separation: poll (from August 2005)

Related articles are archived in the topical categories Western Canada, separatism, political parties.

posted by Kerry @ 4:16 PM 1 comments links to this post

Why Some Muslims HATE Western Civilization: Explaining Islamic Terrorism Via Case Study

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

The Martyr's Oath, a book by Stewart Bell, explains why some Muslims hate, loathe, detest, despise and generally are fanatically against Western Civilization. Bell is a terrorism and national security expert who writes for The National Post newspaper, and in his most recent book (he also published Cold Terror, about how Canada is a base for terrorists (non-affiliate link to Amazon)), Bell recounts the true story of Mohammed Mansour Jabarah, a Canadian-Koweiti who became a high-ranking member of al-Qaeda.

The interest in Bell's book is threefold. First, it exposes how an otherwise normal youth is recruited into the ranks of a terrorist organization. Second, it shows what actually is the cause of some Muslims' hatred of the West. Finally, the writing is excellent, the research is thorough, which all makes the book a compelling read. Furthermore, while Bell narrates the story of Mohammed Mansour Jabarah's indoctrination and recruitment, he simultaneously gives the story context with discussion of Canadian national security.

Mohammed Mansour Jabarah emigrated with his family to Canada after the Iraq-Koweit war. Living in the suburb of St-Catharines Ontario, he grew up living a generally normal, Canadian life. Bell notes that his father was religious and possibly a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, an extremist group of which the terrorists of Hamas are a branch.

Each year, Mohammed and a brother of his were given a trip back to Koweit, where they spent the summer. His childhood friend, Anas-al-Kandari, who had remained in Koweit after the Jabarahs had moved, was becoming increasingly religious, and the two fell increasingly under the nefarious influence of extremist preacher Suleyman Abu Gaith.

Abu Gaith kept repeating his message that the West was oppressing Arabs and Muslims. He showed Mohammed and Anas videos of jihadis and other materials to this effect. (Now's a good moment for you to drop by my post on Al-Jazeera and why bloggers should remove their links to it.) As with any other propaganda, with repetition comes belief, and so the followers of Abu Gaith came to share his views on the supposed "vile oppression" of Muslims by the West.

I won't go any further into the story, because The Martyr's Oath is really a book that needs to be read by every Canadian who takes national security seriously. Besides, as I wrote above, it's a very enjoyable read that is absorbing and really quite difficult to put down, not to mentiont that you'll be amazed by some of the research Bell has done, which includes interviews with actual al-Qaeda members. You can buy The Martyr's Oath (non-affiliate) or get it from your local library.

Getting back to why some Muslims loathe us, forget what Bush and Harper say about 'they hate us for our values'. That's secondary (though Iranian President Ahmadinejad recently spoke out against liberal values, which include free speech). The revelation of The Martyr's Oath is that some Muslims - Muslim youths are particularly targeted - are brainwashed through repetitive propaganda to believe that the West is leading a Crusade against them. Ludicrous as the anti-Muslim conspiracy theories might sound, the brainwashed accept these theories as perfectly logical.

I'd like to digress, again, to just note something for my fellow members of Western civilization. As Westerners, it is important for us to remember that we must not give credibility to the ridiculous assertions, as some of us do, that the West is really responsible for the terrorism perpetrated against it. Our justice system is founded upon the truth that people are responsible for their own actions. Terrorists are responsible for terrorism.

Ben-Laden and his ilk want to establish Islam as the world's only religion (Dar-al-Islam), and they see jihad as the way to achieve this. They claim that the West is attacking Muslims in order to entice otherwise rational people into joining terrorist groups, because such an argument is more compelling than telling people that you are out to establish world Islamic hegemony.

From believing that Western civilization is out to oppress Muslims, it's only a small logical step to hating the West. From there, it is again a small logical to step to conclude that there is a need to defend Muslims, and at that point we can explain how Muslims can come to terrorism.
(I'm going to digress again for a moment to send you over to my post on Father Richard Neuhaus. He says America's Catholics are under attack, and draws conclusions unsurprisingly similar [to al-Qaeda's conclusions for Muslims] as to what Catholics should do.)

I'm boiling down what Bell has written, though. There's more detail in the book as to the mechanics of al-Qaeda and other extremists' brainwashing of potential recruits in the recruitment process, as well as on the functioning of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, such as the Jemaah Islamiyah.

The Martyr's Oath by Stewart Bell is an excellent read that will help anyone understand why some Muslims hate the West, and how this leads them to commit terrorist acts.

If you enjoyed the post, take 30 seconds to subscribe to our free newsletter.

Here are some related articles:

• Why The New Left Despises Western Civilizaiton


• Terrorists Demonstrate in London and New York


• Conservatives Announce Air India Inquiry

Related articles are archived in the topical categories terrorism, national security, foreign affairs, book, Western Civilization.

posted by lecentre @ 2:19 PM 1 comments links to this post

Terrorisme: Lettre a La Presse

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

Voici une lettre au sujet du terrorisme que j'ai envoye a La Presse. Mise a jour: J'ai enleve les accents parce que le logiciel de ce blogue ne les presentait pas correctement. Update: I removed the accents because Blogger doesn't display them properly.

Mme. Dwyer vient de publier dans votre journal des sophismes aberrants.

Premierement, Mme. Dwyer soutient qu'il n'y a pas de mouvement jihadiste international. Elle avance l'idee que les terroristes sont domestiques et desunifies. Or, le repute expert en terrorisme du National Post, Stewart Bell, a publie en 2004 un livre intitule The Martyr's Oath (le Serment du Martyr), qui retrace les pas d'un jeune Arabo-Canadien qui s’est fait indoctrine (a l'Internet, entre autres) et qui a fini par devenir un des cadres d'al-Qaeda qui pretent serment a Ben-Laden.
En passant, ce cadre terroriste Canadien a longtemps habite St-Catharines en Ontario, qui se trouve… a une heure de Toronto.

Deuxiemement, la guerre au terrorisme n'est pas une lutte uniquement americaine. Elle implique toutes les nations qui ne veulent pas se plier au exigeances des Islamistes. Ceux-ci declarent ouvertement que les pays non-musulmans leur font la guerre, et qu'ils sont donc dans leurs droits de repondre par le terrorisme. Le reel etat des relations qu'entretiennent les pays Occidentaux avec le monde musulman importe peu aux Islamistes, car leur appel a l'emeute n'est que de la propagande ayant pour but de provoquer une autre guerre mondiale. Ainsi, ils esperent affirmer l'Islam en tant que religion universelle. La guerre au terrorisme n'est pas une (autre) erreur de George Bush. C'est plutot Dwyer qui est credule en acceptant la propagande d’Oussama Ben-Laden voulant que son reseau ne fait que reagir a de la provocation.

Au lieu d'ecrire des betises, Mme. Dwyer devrait conjuguer ses idees preconcues et fixes a la realite.

If you enjoyed the post, take 30 seconds to subscribe to our free newsletter.
Alternately, consider some suggested posts (links below) or pick your own reading from the archives.

Here are some related articles:

Toronto Terrorist Plot: The Google Twist
Reply to Daniel Pipes on Mohammad Cartoons
Reply to La Presse Editorialist on Separatism


Related articles are archived in the topical categories terrorism, national security, media.

posted by lecentre @ 4:43 PM 0 comments links to this post

Green Party Contest Update

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

Following the exceptional participation in our Green Party Interview Contest, I asked Elizabeth May and David Chernushenko if we could postpone our interviews slightly. Both have responded in the affirmative. The point is that the contest is ongoing, and submissions are still welcome. I've also heard that a third candidate has since joined the race, and will attempt to get an interview with them as well. (Before I forget, much thanks to Alberta's last Liberal, Calgary Grit, for helping promote this.)

For those of you who missed the initial post, CCP is holding a contest asking for suggestions as to questions you'd like to have asked of the Green Party leadership candidates. We've been granted interviews, and want your input on what questions and topics should be addressed.

Here are the submissions (including email from friends and family) that have been received so far. Feel free to skim them and just read a few at random. More suggestions in the comments section of this post are welcome, of course.

From the comments section of the original post:

indievoter commented:

Congratulations, I look forward to reading the interviews. One thing I'd like to find out is how the candidates would address comments by Stephane Dion that he isn't a single-issue candidate based on his environmental concerns but that the Green party is limted in that regard. What I'd like to see illustrated would be how a seemingly non-related issue could have an innovative solution rooted in a green-based approach. Any real life examples would be great.
11:39 AM
604 Plonker commented:

Excellent idea, I'll definitely be submitting questions in the days to come.

Any particular deadline? When do you plan to send the questions to the candidates, and post the answers?
11:48 AM
Herbinatorcommented:

The Special Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate on Custody and Access Report recommended that a child have equal access rights to both parents.

Would you [the candidate] endorse as first principle that "a child must have equal access rights to both parents after a divorce unless and excepting there are extenuating circumstances," and amend existing legislation to reflect this right?
12:19 PM
berlynn commented:

What, specifically, do we as a country need to do locally and globally to curb the devastation of our planet and how will you go about implementing it?
12:29 PM
lecentre commented:

Indievoter: Thanks for good words. I'm not sure I understand what you want me to ask them in regards to Stephane Dion, though. I appreciate your point about solving unrelated issues with a green approach, though.
604: I'm looking to carry out the interviews this Thursday, though if participation is high enough, I'll obviously look at extending it. For now, the deadline is Wednesday May 31st, 11:59 pm.
1:30 PM
lecentre commented:

Herbinator: good question, very professionally phrased. Much appreciated.

Berlynn, I appreciate your point, but could you be more specific about what you're referring to as 'the devastation of our planet'. There are many things that could be 'devastating' it, obviously, so naming a few of the more important ones would be great.
1:32 PM
calgarygrit commented:

I'd be very curious to hear what concrete ideas they have to get a Green MP elected in Canada. Besides the usual "lobby to be included in the debates".

Because this party really won't be taken seriously until they elect an MP, I think the main focus of the next leader should be to try and win a seat for the party somewhere.
3:18 PM
berlynn commented:

I guess I could narrow it to the devastation of our air, our land, our peoples.
3:26 PM
indievoter commented:

To help clarify my question I'd like to reference a quote by Elizabeth May:

"In searching for solutions, reorienting that mindset, we go back to where this conversation started: life versus money. If we got that orientation right. If we reversed it. If we stopped playing Russian roulette with the planet’s atmosphere. If, between life and money, we chose life. If that was how we organized society, if that were the way governments functioned, if the precautionary principle was considered more important than the profit motive, then we might get all these things right."

When I read this my brain suddenly unlocked and I thought, hey, what if...!

To put this revelation in context, I've only ever voted NDP or Liberal in my life. In the past I just accepted what I was told by those parties - that the Green Party is a one issue party. That's the mindset the Green party has an opportunity to address and I think the more specific examples we have, the more people will debate and discuss and hopefully think differently than in the past.
3:50 PM
Keller commented:

Will the Green Party continue it's current, and in my opinion very smart, path of fiscal conservatism combined with a socially liberal agenda with the focus on the environment?

Or will it, under your leadership, follow the European Green Party path? Which essentially is an NDP style socialist party, with a focus on the environment.

Personally one of the main reasons I voted for the Green Party in two federal, and one provincial, elections is because of the current ideological focus. Although I heartily disagree with your stance on nuclear power.
5:31 PM
Herbinator commented:

The US Green Party passed this resolution in November of last year:
"The Green Party of the United States (GPUS) publicly calls for divestment from and boycott of the State of Israel until such time as the full individual and collective rights of the Palestinian people are realized."
Is solidarity with the American Greens important, and do you support Resolution 190?
6:02 PM
KO commented:

How about you ask, as green leader would you support increased nuclear power, or increased hydro power to meet our power needs (and don't let them off saying we can conserve or solar/wind to meet all our energy needs, the sun doesn't shine all the time, and sometimes the wind doesn't blow)

and how about this:
Do you believe a product should have to be proven safe before being introduced, even if it has met all other government regulations on that product?
6:48 PM
Jason Cherniak commented:

I have often heard that ethanol actually requires just as much energy to create as it produces. I would like to know what the candidates think of this theory.
8:25 PM
lecentre commented:

Great questions all!

C-Grit: Excellent point. I'd like to have you manage my campaign strategy if ever I went into politics, you know that? I keep noticing that you have a sharp eye for federal politics... Anyways, I hope that becomes one of the more popular questions.

Jason/KO: The ethanol theory and the nuclear question are obviously quite relevant. Alternative energy sources, if current trends continue, will be given attention.

KO - What do you mean it has to be proven safe? Aren't the re government regulations requiring that? Why wouldn't something need to be proven safe?

Keller - Your question is what their fiscal policy will be? What they would do as Finance Minister, kind of thing?
And are you referring to my stance on nuclear power or the Green Party's?

Berlynn - Again, that's vague. For instance, when you say 'the air', do you mean there's nuclear radiation, smog, chemicals giving off dangerous fumes, other stuff?

Indie - You're saying that you want to hear their approach to changing public perception of the Greens as being only, well, Green?

Herbinator - I have no intention of promoting ridiculous questions on issues that only exist in the minds of the uninformed. People say divest from Caterpillar to hurt Israel, for example. Well, the irony is that Cats are key to the Arabs' economy too. Do you support divestment now?

I'm open to questions on the Israeli-Arab conflict, but not on whether the Greens will support inanities (and I would be terribly shocked and dissapointed if they did).
12:05 AM
e commented:

Ooo! Ooo! I have a question:

The Green Party positions itself as a party of the grass roots. But over the past few years, the grass roots portions of organization (namely policy development and internal governence) have been withering due to neglect.

How do we correct that, and see that it doesn't happen again?
1:03 AM
Keller commented:

Fiscal ideology rather. Their current position is basically Red Tory with green overtones. They support a welfare state of some sort, and businesses are free to make money but must do so in an environmentally responsible manner. As opposed to the NDP (and European Green Parties) who espouse a traditional socialist ideology on finance.

And I was referring to the Green Party's stance on nuclear power (I don't actually know what yours is) especially given the number of environmentalists that have come out in favour of it over the last few years, notably including a co-founder of Greenpeace.
11:14 PM
lecentre commented:

E and keller, good quality stuff.

I've really appreciated how popular this has gotten, and think it can go further, so I'm going to ask the two candidates if we can delay the interviews a little.

From email

Fellow Centrerion Ilya wrote:

I think it's important to also address
the fact that the two candidates are competing with each other and thus have different views. An example of the type of questions I would suggest is "What are some of your policies that would distinguish the Green Party under your leadership from the Green Party under the leadership of your opponent, May (or Chernushenko)?"

This will lead to a healthy discussion by well-informed Green Party activists about the merits and weaknesses of various "Green" policies.

From a friend in BC:

I guess most people wonder about how well they would govern based
on two things: their lack of experience and the heavy
environmental focus of their platform. I would
probably ask questions regarding those two issues.
However, I would particularly focus on their
environmental leanings, since a government is supposed
to primarily concern itself with people and society,
not plants and animals.

The name of their party somewhat insinuates that
people come second to environment. I believe they
have been trying to change this image for awhile now,
but without much success. Most people still see them
as "tree-huggers."

I’m actually on their website right now glancing at
their 2006 platform. I have a personal interest in
immigration policy and on the impact that immigrants
have on Canadian identity and unity. I believe that
immigration can have a positive impact on Canada.
However, it can also negatively impact Canadian social
cohesion if immigrants are not properly integrated and
socialized into Canadian society. I do not see the
Canadian government taking the necessary steps to
integrate immigrants into our country.

If immigrants remain too "foreign" (for lack of a
better word), national unity is weakened and core
Canadian values and beliefs are not upheld by all
citizens. You see people emigrating from countries
with values that are actually opposed to Canadian
values. Take, for instance, immigrants from North
Africa. In countries such as Algeria women and people
of other religious orientations (Jews and Christians)
are not only ascribed less respect and value, but are
also treated unequally.

Just because Canada is a multicultural country does
not mean that we can invite people with harmful values
and beliefs into our nation, especially without proper
social integration. Multiculturalism in Canada means
intercultural appreciation, tolerance, and sharing,
within a bilingual framework and with respect to core
Canadian values, such as tolerance, anti-racism,
anti-sexism, etc. Therefore, this multiculturalism
should only embrace those elements of a culture which
are not discriminatory, harmful, or in someway
damaging to Canadian citizens or to Canadian values.

Given the Green party's desire to welcome all
newcomers and to embrace their social and ethnic
differences, I am curious to know how they
simultaneously plan on protecting Canadian values,
identity and national solidarity.

The Green party loosely says that they wish to "work
with municipalities and provinces to improve the
integration of new Canadians into the multicultural
fabric of our country."

What does this mean? In what capacity do they want to
work with municipalities and provinces? In what way
do they want to improve the integration of immigrants
into Canada's society? Do they have any social
integration programs or ideas in the works?

Those would be my questions since this is my area of
interest. They also mentioned some interesting things
on their website regarding the Anti-Terrorism Act and
the Public Safety Act with regards to immigrants.

From a professor of mine who teaches a course entitled War, Peace and the World Order:

One question I would ask the leadership candidates is whether they agree with the criticism that the Green Party has shifted away from its roots. I would also ask them what they believe we need to do to confront global warning and their opinion on the Conservative Party's support for ethanol as a solution.

Perhaps you could also ask them about GMOs and their views on the probelms facing our health care system would be interesting. I am waiting to see some more attention paid to the environmental causes of disease (perhaps you could ask them about the epidemic of cancer that we are facing) and the need to focus more on prevention than treatment. Why not ask them about their views on economic globalization as well.

I replied to her to make sure I understood her suggestions, which she said I did. They boiled down to this:

1) If they agree it's shifted away from its progressive roots;
2) What can be done to confront global warming?
3) Their opinion for the Conservatives support for ethanol;
GMOs, problems facing health care? What specifically?
4) Views on environmental causes for disease, specifically cancer;
5) What can be done to shift emphasis to prevention?
6) Opinion on economic globalization is a key issue.

Update

From fellow Centrerion Kerry:

What changes in direction do you have planned for the Green Party, if any?

What new arguments do you plan to use to convince the Broadcasters Consortium to let the Green Party into the leadership debates?

How important is it to continue to attract supporters from all ends of the political spectrum?

If a Green candidate other than the leader wins a seat, will he or she be expected to step aside in favour of the leader?

What makes your approach different from that of your opponent?

If you enjoyed the post, take 30 seconds to subscribe to our free newsletter.
Alternately, consider some suggested posts (links below) or pick your own reading from the archives.

Here are some related articles:

Green Party Contest
Liberal leadership child donation uproar
May will run a full slate

Related articles are archived in the topical categories Green Party of Canada, environment, leadership.

posted by lecentre @ 3:30 PM 2 comments links to this post

Toronto Terrorist Plot: The Google Twist

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

Google Trends shows that Toronto is the city with the second-most searches for 'how to build a bomb'. There's more interesting news to be found there, things that should help convince some of my naive fellow Canadians that the War on Terror is indeed a global fight that Canadians must participate in too.

Know which country has the most people looking to learn how to build a bomb? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Try Canuckistan.

Now, I hear the rebukes already: everyone who looks up how to build a bomb isn't necessarily a terrorist. That's true: I've looked it up myself to see if it was as readily available as the mainstream media say. It's important information though, to say the least.

Oh, and how about this: Google Trends' Qassam info. For Kassam, we're second only to the UK, which apparently has some famous person of that name who bought a soccer team in Oxford.

On a related worrying note, Australia also has lots of people searching for things like ammonium nitrate. For those who don't know, ammonium nitrate is a chemical that can be used to make high-powered explosives. The suspects arrested in connection with the Toronto terrorist plot had 3 tons of the substance.

I think it's about time CSIS (Canadian Security and Intelligence Services) gets the funding it deserves.

If you enjoyed this post, take 30 seconds to subscribe to our free newsletter.

Here are some related articles:

Why the New Left Loathes Western Civilization
Freedom Aboard World Report
Hamas Plan to Kill Muhammad Abbas Foiled by Israeli Intelligence

Related articles are archived in the topical categories terrorism, national security, Google.

posted by lecentre @ 2:47 PM 2 comments links to this post

Will it be mommy or daddy's credit card you want to charge your donation to

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

Thats just what a parody site of Joe Volpe's acceptance of child donations asked but was shut down by the CIRA for no apparent reason upon request of Volpe.

Thats correct, youthforvolpe.ca google cache of the site here was shutdown by the CIRA for no apparent reason. Is Canada starting to censor the internet and freedom of speech? Because of a Liberal (the party that brought us the charter) leadership candidate no less?

This censorship is disgusting: parody works are protected by the charter and Volpe isn't a trademark in any way shape or form. It's time for the CIRA to apologize and grow up.

If you enjoyed the post, take 30 seconds to subscribe to our free newsletter.
Alternately, consider some suggested posts (links below) or pick your own reading from the archives.

Related articles are archived in the topical categories federal politics, Liberal Party of Canada, leadership.

posted by Andrew @ 8:34 PM 4 comments links to this post

Mediocre Media 3

Save this online in Del.icio.us. [?] Vote For this Post

Welcome to Mediocre Media, the blog carnival about criticism of the media.

Before we begin, an apology for the delay in bringing you this media bash (in all meanings of the word). I was in exams, and few submissions were received in the initial allotted time period.

Another thing before we begin: you can participate too. Just head over to Conservative Cat's carnival page, or Blogcarnival.com, and use either form to submit a post to this carnival. You can also submit posts to the other carnivals we host, including Moderate Circus, and soon, a guest-hosting of the Tangled Bank science carnival.

This carnival, we're very fortunate to have an author with multiple submissions. To acknowledge her effort, here's a link to: Shiloh Muse, who gets our outstanding contribution to media criticism awards!

1. Muse's contributions to this edition of the media critics' carnival include: Who's the latest blogger in town?, in the category of ethics and morality; and Collective Insanity, still in ethics and morality.

Editor's pick:
2. Believe it or not, we have someone standing up for the mainstream media (msm) in this latest edition of Mediocre Media. That is, they're being defended against censorship by our lovely, open, tolerant friends in Iran: Mensa Barbie at Mensa Barbie Welcomes You presents Banned by Iran: Except Favorable News. Then again, is that really a defense of the Maybe Super Media?

Editor's pick on Israel:
3. From Soccer Dad we have a Mediocre Media submission for someone else! The sports pop says: "Elder of Ziyon had an excellent takedown of the BBC's mideast coverage."

4. ShaolinTiger at ShaolinTiger - Kung-Fu Geekery presents The State of Traditional Media and Newspapers in Malaysia. Apparently, they could all do with some journalism 101 there, so you've got to feel for this poor Brit.

Editor's pick on Iraq:
5. Chuck Ziegenfuss at From My Position... On the way! presents We're losing in Iraq, Just like we lost in Vietnam. That is, the loss is in the media and the public eye; not in the facts on the ground. From a soldier, about the soldiers.

6. Josh Cohen at Multiple Mentality takes a moment to criticize TV network ABC's choice of a new host in Out with the old, in with the old. Why does everyone hate old white guys?

7. Tam Hanna at TamsPalm-the Palm OS Blog presents A new palm is coming...and the STFU pill is served. Tam's problem concerns the censorship of tech journalists. Who knew?

8. From Yisrael Medad, of the Begin Center in Israel, another submission for someone else.
---
Newsmagazine Der Spiegel admits staff spied
---
Der Spiegel, famed throughout decades for rooting out corruption and the
vagaries of errant politicians, admitted Saturday some staff had been
working for the government intelligence service. In an article in
Monday's edition, released in advance, the weekly - considered a
watchdog of press and democratic freedoms in postwar Germany - said one
staff member in a regional bureau had been working for the Federal
Intelligence Service (BND) as recently as last autumn.

Source: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2018713,00.html - AFP, Deutsche Welle

9. CountryGoalie at To the Hilt presents the dumbest attack on homeschooling? While it isn't entirely clear what the goalie's issue with the media is (or maybe I just don't get it), and most of the post appears to concern some debate on Christianity, there are some interesting points about rhetoric that the argumentative amongst us might care for.

10. Michael McCullough at Stingray: a blog for salty Christians presents Journalists still playing fast and loose with the truth. Michael's putting up a passionate defense of President Bush. I have some questions for him though.

• Are Iraq's terrorists only using suicide attacks?
• Is that the only parameter for saying whether there's a war going on there or not?
• Also, just because the tax system taxes the rich more than it did 20 years ago, does that mean that Bush's tax cuts don't favour the rich? It does not.

Mike's passionate, but his arguments are of questionable validity since the conclusions don't rationally follow from the premises. Can you say 'non-sequitur'?

Note: The fact is I agree with Stingray that the journalist he's criticizing is being biased in his reporting, and that the terrorists can be defeated in Iraq, but the arguments Michael provides are dubious.

--On a more positive note, I encourage you all to check out the Society of Professional Journalists who have a good ethics section, and daily press notes covering the news about the media, including censorship, the blogosphere, and everyone's favourites: the MSM!--

If you enjoyed the post, take 30 seconds to subscribe to our free newsletter.
Alternately, consider some suggested posts (links below) or pick your own reading from the archives.

Here are some related articles:

Mediocre Media 2
Mediocre Media 1
Why the New Left Hates Western Civilization
Foreign Affairs: Wiretaps and Iraq

Related articles are archived in the topical categories foreign affairs, carnivals, media.

posted by lecentre @ 2:52 PM 3 comments links to this post