THE READING MOTHER
Strickland Gillilan
I HAD A MOTHER who read to me
Sagas of pirates who scoured the sea,
Cutlasses clenched in their yellow teeth,
"Blackbirds" stowed in the hold beneath
I had a Mother who read me lays
Of ancient and gallant and golden days;
Stories of Marmion and Ivanhoe,
Which every boy has a right to know.
I had a Mother who read me tales
Of Celert the hound of the hills of Wales,
True to his trust till his tragic death,
Faithfulness blent with his final breath.
I had a Mother who read me the things
That wholesome life to the boy heart brings-
Stories that stir with an upward touch,
Oh, that each mother of boys were such.
You may have tangible wealth untold;
Caskets of jewels and coffers of gold.
Richer than I you can never be --
I had a Mother who read to me.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
The future of printed news
The future of “paper news”.
The recent news about our various newspapers is rather sombre: Even The Toronto Star is losing money; CanWest/National Post is tethering on bankruptcy; and the Toronto Sun is bleeding red ink. Canadian book publishers have had a rough time the last several years; as Roy McSkimming delineated in his book The Perilous Trade. Newspapers –and to a lesser degree, mews magazines –are facing a dual struggle: the recession that affects all business, and more seriously, the technological and social change that the internet has wrought. The younger, multitasking, instant gratification generation is not inclined to read news in dept; they would rather receive it on their IPods and Blackberrys. The older generation, like me, that prefers newspapers to the computer for reading, usually wants in-dept analysis in the comfort of their easy chair. But, newscasts are everywhere; on the radio, TV, internet – instant and superficial – just the way our harried, instantaneous society wants it. The “news” part of newspapers has lost its raison d’être.
However, there is still a valid and useful role for the traditional news media, including magazines. One example of how a publication can rejuvenate itself is Maclean’s, which has succeeded so well that the Time Magazine has now withdrawn from the Canadian market, after many more than fifty years of publishing a Canadian edition.
The possible demise of the National Post and the Toronto Sun will not be mourned by many. The Post was a testimony and an expression of Conrad Black’s megalomania, and I could not understand the rationale for Izzy Asper’s purchase of the stinker from Black, other than the political clout and “status” it might have conferred on him at the time. In his book IZZY, Peter Newman put it most succinctly: “The first 50 percent (of The Post) cost Izzy $ 100 million; the second 50 percent went for$ 1.00. He paid too much both times”(p.302,).
Whether a display by the Aspers of miscast loyalty or just plain folly, it is ironic that Mr Black still writes a column in the Post, even offering an “interview” with himself in his prison home!
These times will test the mettle of all publications, and in this Darwinian economic struggle, only the fittest will survive. Toronto cannot support four newspapers any longer, and the country does not need two national dailies. I will wager that when the dust settles on this imbroglio, only two papers will still be standing: The Globe and Mail and The Toronto Star.
The recent news about our various newspapers is rather sombre: Even The Toronto Star is losing money; CanWest/National Post is tethering on bankruptcy; and the Toronto Sun is bleeding red ink. Canadian book publishers have had a rough time the last several years; as Roy McSkimming delineated in his book The Perilous Trade. Newspapers –and to a lesser degree, mews magazines –are facing a dual struggle: the recession that affects all business, and more seriously, the technological and social change that the internet has wrought. The younger, multitasking, instant gratification generation is not inclined to read news in dept; they would rather receive it on their IPods and Blackberrys. The older generation, like me, that prefers newspapers to the computer for reading, usually wants in-dept analysis in the comfort of their easy chair. But, newscasts are everywhere; on the radio, TV, internet – instant and superficial – just the way our harried, instantaneous society wants it. The “news” part of newspapers has lost its raison d’être.
However, there is still a valid and useful role for the traditional news media, including magazines. One example of how a publication can rejuvenate itself is Maclean’s, which has succeeded so well that the Time Magazine has now withdrawn from the Canadian market, after many more than fifty years of publishing a Canadian edition.
The possible demise of the National Post and the Toronto Sun will not be mourned by many. The Post was a testimony and an expression of Conrad Black’s megalomania, and I could not understand the rationale for Izzy Asper’s purchase of the stinker from Black, other than the political clout and “status” it might have conferred on him at the time. In his book IZZY, Peter Newman put it most succinctly: “The first 50 percent (of The Post) cost Izzy $ 100 million; the second 50 percent went for$ 1.00. He paid too much both times”(p.302,).
Whether a display by the Aspers of miscast loyalty or just plain folly, it is ironic that Mr Black still writes a column in the Post, even offering an “interview” with himself in his prison home!
These times will test the mettle of all publications, and in this Darwinian economic struggle, only the fittest will survive. Toronto cannot support four newspapers any longer, and the country does not need two national dailies. I will wager that when the dust settles on this imbroglio, only two papers will still be standing: The Globe and Mail and The Toronto Star.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
STIMULUS: AN ECONOMIC IMPERATIVE
Both Americans and Canadians have been spending too much and saving too little. Consumption has become the economic & social imperative, as witnessed after September 11th, when the New York City’s mayor encouraged people to “go shopping”.
The example of mortgage deductibility and its inducement to take on debt is valid, and here Canada has a better tax policy. Even so, before we get too busy patting our own backs, we should remember that we had our own real estate assets-price inflation mess in the late eighties, and it came crashing down in the early nineties, bottoming out at about a forty percent decline. It took well-night ten years before house prices recovered to the eighties price levels. A major reason for this hyper-activity was the $ 500,000.00 capital gains deductibility (later reduced to $ 100,000.00 by the Liberal government; eventually cancelled all together) introduced by the then Conservative government. Many individuals became house-speculators and real estate “investors”. One fellow I knew, an ordinary hourly worker, had seven homes that he rented out. Some real estate agents did little else but buy and sell homes on their own behalf, and ordinary people bought homes and “flipped” them after a suitable capital gain. Many speculated in this way with their own homes, buying a new house with a long closing date, and then selling their own house after it had gained suitably in value. Builders were behind; there was a shortage of skilled workers, and six months or more was normal for a closing date. Buying first and selling your own home became the norm, and house buyers could pocket a substantial tax-free capital gain in between transactions. I knew of people doing so more than once a year –the family living like gypsies with the objective of eventually become mortgage free or living in a palatial home.
However, the chickens came home to roost and the bees returned to the hives in early nineteen-nineties, and many people got severely stung. I recall one older couple who had bought a smaller home in which to retire and were planning to pay off their mortgage. The builder gave them a six month completion date, and they held on to their old, large home waiting for it to appreciate. Well, the housing market collapsed in 1990-91, and they eventually had to sell their old home at a much lower price. The wife told me, with some irony, that they now had a smaller house with a larger mortgage! The difference in the US situation now, is that, in addition tax deductibility, the homebuyers were encouraged to buy more than they could afford, with little or no equity, and an artificially low mortgage payment for the first few years. This was initially a well meaning policy initiated by the Clinton administration, but it got out of hand with the laissez- faire regulations policy of the Bush administration, and there you are.
The old saying “buyer beware” is still valid –the government cannot protect everyone from their own greed and stupidity. A re-alignment between want and need is in order, and one would hope that one result of this economic mess is that people will come to their senses and realize that shopping and getting is not all this life is about.
Unfortunately, monetary policy is not a “sufficient remedy”, when there is huge demand destruction like we now are experiencing. Printing money is like pushing up a rope, and will only lead to massive inflation at a later stage. Lower interest rates are also useless when they are all ready close to zero; lenders won’t lend and potential buyers have no business growth and very little equity. Liquefy the banks, and lean on them to lend is, unfortunately, a necessity, though lending to unqualified buyers is what got them into trouble in the first place. It’s a veritable Hobson’s choice, and the banks are caught between a rock and a hard place. Ultimately, more stringent regulations and overview, especially of derivatives and other fancy investment vehicles to be dreamt up in the future, is a minimum. Meanwhile, fiscal actions such as infrastructure repairs and transportation development is the best options, and offers the most “bang for the buck”, since the working people will benefit from the wages earned on such projects, and spend most on it Such expenditures on capital projects will, hopefully, last longer than the deficit incurred by such activity. The much studied Windsor-Quebec corridor high-speed train service is one that comes readily to mind. It would kill two birds with one stone: economic stimulant and pollution retardant.
The example of mortgage deductibility and its inducement to take on debt is valid, and here Canada has a better tax policy. Even so, before we get too busy patting our own backs, we should remember that we had our own real estate assets-price inflation mess in the late eighties, and it came crashing down in the early nineties, bottoming out at about a forty percent decline. It took well-night ten years before house prices recovered to the eighties price levels. A major reason for this hyper-activity was the $ 500,000.00 capital gains deductibility (later reduced to $ 100,000.00 by the Liberal government; eventually cancelled all together) introduced by the then Conservative government. Many individuals became house-speculators and real estate “investors”. One fellow I knew, an ordinary hourly worker, had seven homes that he rented out. Some real estate agents did little else but buy and sell homes on their own behalf, and ordinary people bought homes and “flipped” them after a suitable capital gain. Many speculated in this way with their own homes, buying a new house with a long closing date, and then selling their own house after it had gained suitably in value. Builders were behind; there was a shortage of skilled workers, and six months or more was normal for a closing date. Buying first and selling your own home became the norm, and house buyers could pocket a substantial tax-free capital gain in between transactions. I knew of people doing so more than once a year –the family living like gypsies with the objective of eventually become mortgage free or living in a palatial home.
However, the chickens came home to roost and the bees returned to the hives in early nineteen-nineties, and many people got severely stung. I recall one older couple who had bought a smaller home in which to retire and were planning to pay off their mortgage. The builder gave them a six month completion date, and they held on to their old, large home waiting for it to appreciate. Well, the housing market collapsed in 1990-91, and they eventually had to sell their old home at a much lower price. The wife told me, with some irony, that they now had a smaller house with a larger mortgage! The difference in the US situation now, is that, in addition tax deductibility, the homebuyers were encouraged to buy more than they could afford, with little or no equity, and an artificially low mortgage payment for the first few years. This was initially a well meaning policy initiated by the Clinton administration, but it got out of hand with the laissez- faire regulations policy of the Bush administration, and there you are.
The old saying “buyer beware” is still valid –the government cannot protect everyone from their own greed and stupidity. A re-alignment between want and need is in order, and one would hope that one result of this economic mess is that people will come to their senses and realize that shopping and getting is not all this life is about.
Unfortunately, monetary policy is not a “sufficient remedy”, when there is huge demand destruction like we now are experiencing. Printing money is like pushing up a rope, and will only lead to massive inflation at a later stage. Lower interest rates are also useless when they are all ready close to zero; lenders won’t lend and potential buyers have no business growth and very little equity. Liquefy the banks, and lean on them to lend is, unfortunately, a necessity, though lending to unqualified buyers is what got them into trouble in the first place. It’s a veritable Hobson’s choice, and the banks are caught between a rock and a hard place. Ultimately, more stringent regulations and overview, especially of derivatives and other fancy investment vehicles to be dreamt up in the future, is a minimum. Meanwhile, fiscal actions such as infrastructure repairs and transportation development is the best options, and offers the most “bang for the buck”, since the working people will benefit from the wages earned on such projects, and spend most on it Such expenditures on capital projects will, hopefully, last longer than the deficit incurred by such activity. The much studied Windsor-Quebec corridor high-speed train service is one that comes readily to mind. It would kill two birds with one stone: economic stimulant and pollution retardant.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Jewish groups slam boycott aimed at Israeli universities – Star Feb23/09
Sid Ryan and his gang are getting more than tiresome; they are acting alike a bunch of bigots.
Fresh from Comparing Jews to Nazis, he is now spearheading a motion to boycott Israeli Universities. Blaming the victim now extends to Israel and its reaction to the murderous jihadists lobbing rockets at their civilian population –adults and children – indiscriminately.
If Palestinians have achieved one thing in their anti-Israel campaign of murder and mayhem, it is to achieve an acceptance of neo-anti-Semitic vitriol among people so inclined in other parts of the world, including Canada. The fact that Israel now can defend its people is seen as justification for bigoted and anti-Semitic behaviour by wing-nuts like Mr Ryan and others of the same ilk. Using his union as a vehicle for such drivel makes it even more disgusting.
Fresh from Comparing Jews to Nazis, he is now spearheading a motion to boycott Israeli Universities. Blaming the victim now extends to Israel and its reaction to the murderous jihadists lobbing rockets at their civilian population –adults and children – indiscriminately.
If Palestinians have achieved one thing in their anti-Israel campaign of murder and mayhem, it is to achieve an acceptance of neo-anti-Semitic vitriol among people so inclined in other parts of the world, including Canada. The fact that Israel now can defend its people is seen as justification for bigoted and anti-Semitic behaviour by wing-nuts like Mr Ryan and others of the same ilk. Using his union as a vehicle for such drivel makes it even more disgusting.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Norwegian diplomacy or hypocrisy ?
Hypocrisy!by David A. Harris
Executive Director
American Jewish Committee
January 26, 2009
Dear Ms. Trine Lilleng,
You were an unknown Norwegian diplomat till this month.
No longer.
As first secretary in the Norwegian Embassy in Saudi Arabia, you recently sent out an email on your office account in which you declared: "The grandchildren of Holocaust survivors from World War II are doing to the Palestinians exactly what was done to them by Nazi Germany."
Accompanying your text were photos, with an emphasis on children, seeking to juxtapose the Holocaust with the recent Israeli military operation in Gaza.
Clearly, you are miscast in your role as a diplomat, all the more so of a nation that has sought to play a mediating role in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
In fact, you're desperately in need of some education.
Let's begin with your current posting. You've been in Riyadh since 2007.
If you're so anguished by human rights violations, perhaps you could have begun by devoting some of your attention - and email blasts - to what surrounds you.
Or were your eyes diplomatically shut?
Have you failed to notice the many legal executions, including beheadings, going on in your assigned country?
Have you ignored the often abysmal treatment of foreign workers, many from Asia, who also happen to be disproportionately counted among the victims of Saudi capital punishment?
Have you neglected the gender apartheid that surrounds you? Did you ever look out of your car to notice that Saudi women are proscribed from driving, and that's hardly the worst of it?
Have you checked the skyline of Riyadh or Jeddah lately to count the number of church spires or other non-Muslim houses of worship?
Have you bothered to inquire about the fate of homosexuals?
Okay, you were AWOL on those issues. Maybe you just didn't want to offend your hosts by speaking the truth, or maybe you're suffering from that diplomatic disease known as "localitis" or "clientitis."
But surely a woman like you, with such capacity for empathy for those in far-away places, and especially for children in danger, couldn't remain silent about other human rights transgressions, could she?
After all, could an individual so deeply moved by the plight of Palestinians in Gaza remain silent about what aNew York Times columnist earlier this month described as "hell on earth" - Zimbabwe? Could a person so anguished by the fate of Palestinian children stay mum about a country where a girl's life expectancy at birth is 34, much less than half that of her Norwegian counterpart, and where the health care sector has vaporized, all thanks to the one-man rule of Robert Mugabe?
Could such a dedicated humanist possibly avert her eyes from the deadliest conflict since the Second World War, which has killed over five million people, many of them children, in the Congo in the past decade - not to mention the documented and widespread use of torture, rape, and arbitrary detention?
An observer of such acute sensitivity could hardly hold her tongue while Afghan girls attempting to go to school have been doused with acid by those who wish to deny young women access to education, reminiscent of the five years of Taliban rule, could she?
In neighboring Pakistan, where you served in the Norwegian embassy for three years, the beleaguered human rights community must have been fortunate to have such an impassioned voice for all that's wrong in this failing state. Or was that voice, perhaps, on mute?
The children of Sderot, the Israeli town near the Gaza border, have been in desperate need of just such a spokesperson as you for the past eight years.
After all, their town has been in the crosshairs of literally thousands of missiles and mortars fired from Gaza. Those Israeli children live with all the signs of trauma, knowing that, with only 15 seconds warning, they could be hit at any time in their schools, their parks, or their beds. Yet, during my visit there last week, for some reason, those children and their parents had yet to hear you speak out for them. What a pity!
And the children of Iran could use your help as well. According to human rights groups, Iran has no compunction about executing children or those who were children when their crimes were allegedly committed.
Oh, and by the way, your compassionate help would also undoubtedly be welcomed by others under the gun in Iran, including women's rights activists, union organizers, student protesters, independent journalists, reformist politicians, and religious minorities. And let's not forget, once again, the children of Israel, who, according to the Iranian president, don't have a right to live.
But wait! A Google search about you reveals nothing, not a single word, regarding your views on Zimbabwe, Congo, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sderot, or Iran. Or, for that matter, Burma, Darfur, Syria. Shall I go on?
Only Israel, faced with those who wish to destroy it, manages to prompt your impassioned correspondence and righteous indignation. Why?
No less, your stunning lack of education extends beyond the contemporary world to 20th century history, specifically the Holocaust.
Your invocation of the Holocaust to describe what's taken place in Gaza is, frankly, nothing short of obscene.
Your claim that the grandchildren of the survivors are doing to the Palestinians exactly what was done to them goes beyond any norm of decency, much less honesty.
Approve or disapprove of the Israeli military operation, but there is no basis whatsoever for such a comparison.
When Israel entered Gaza in a war of self-defense in 1967, the population was 360,000. After Israel withdrew totally from Gaza in 2005, it was estimated at 1.4 million.
Would that the Jewish population under Nazi rule had quadrupled!
When Israel entered Gaza in 1967, life expectancy for women was 46. When it left Gaza, it was 73.
Shall we even bother to discuss life expectancy for Jews under Nazi occupation?
The Second World War in Europe lasted from September 1, 1939 to May 8, 1945 - 68 months in all. That means an average monthly extermination rate of nearly 90,000 Jews.
Compare that to the total number of victims in Gaza over three weeks - roughly guesstimated at more or less 1,000 - and recall that the majority were armed fighters committed to Israel's destruction, who used civilians, including children, as human shields, mosques as arms depots, and hospitals as sanctuaries.
Believe me, Ms. Lilleng, if the "grandchildren of the Holocaust survivors" had wanted to do exactly what the Nazis did to their grandparents, they would have unleashed their full air, land, and sea power. They would have thrown the Israel Defense Forces' ethical guidelines to the wind, kicked out the UN and Red Cross personnel on the ground, stopped humanitarian transports of food, fuel, and medicine, prevented media reporting, and left absolutely nothing - and no one - standing.
Unless, of course, they needed slave labor, in which case they would have carted off the able-bodied to work in Auschwitz replicas until they dropped. Or material for ghoulish medical experimentation, in which case, in the spirit of Mengele, they would have kept Palestinian twins alive temporarily.
But Israel didn't do any of these things. It's a peace-seeking democracy dedicated to the rule of law - unlike so many of the countries whose horrific sins you blithely choose to overlook.
What are we to make of your selective moral outrage and rank hypocrisy?
You ought to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself why Israel, and only Israel, makes your blood boil and leads you to speak out, even at the risk of grossly distorting both reality and history.
The answer, Ms. Lilleng, should be painfully obvious.
Executive Director
American Jewish Committee
January 26, 2009
Dear Ms. Trine Lilleng,
You were an unknown Norwegian diplomat till this month.
No longer.
As first secretary in the Norwegian Embassy in Saudi Arabia, you recently sent out an email on your office account in which you declared: "The grandchildren of Holocaust survivors from World War II are doing to the Palestinians exactly what was done to them by Nazi Germany."
Accompanying your text were photos, with an emphasis on children, seeking to juxtapose the Holocaust with the recent Israeli military operation in Gaza.
Clearly, you are miscast in your role as a diplomat, all the more so of a nation that has sought to play a mediating role in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
In fact, you're desperately in need of some education.
Let's begin with your current posting. You've been in Riyadh since 2007.
If you're so anguished by human rights violations, perhaps you could have begun by devoting some of your attention - and email blasts - to what surrounds you.
Or were your eyes diplomatically shut?
Have you failed to notice the many legal executions, including beheadings, going on in your assigned country?
Have you ignored the often abysmal treatment of foreign workers, many from Asia, who also happen to be disproportionately counted among the victims of Saudi capital punishment?
Have you neglected the gender apartheid that surrounds you? Did you ever look out of your car to notice that Saudi women are proscribed from driving, and that's hardly the worst of it?
Have you checked the skyline of Riyadh or Jeddah lately to count the number of church spires or other non-Muslim houses of worship?
Have you bothered to inquire about the fate of homosexuals?
Okay, you were AWOL on those issues. Maybe you just didn't want to offend your hosts by speaking the truth, or maybe you're suffering from that diplomatic disease known as "localitis" or "clientitis."
But surely a woman like you, with such capacity for empathy for those in far-away places, and especially for children in danger, couldn't remain silent about other human rights transgressions, could she?
After all, could an individual so deeply moved by the plight of Palestinians in Gaza remain silent about what aNew York Times columnist earlier this month described as "hell on earth" - Zimbabwe? Could a person so anguished by the fate of Palestinian children stay mum about a country where a girl's life expectancy at birth is 34, much less than half that of her Norwegian counterpart, and where the health care sector has vaporized, all thanks to the one-man rule of Robert Mugabe?
Could such a dedicated humanist possibly avert her eyes from the deadliest conflict since the Second World War, which has killed over five million people, many of them children, in the Congo in the past decade - not to mention the documented and widespread use of torture, rape, and arbitrary detention?
An observer of such acute sensitivity could hardly hold her tongue while Afghan girls attempting to go to school have been doused with acid by those who wish to deny young women access to education, reminiscent of the five years of Taliban rule, could she?
In neighboring Pakistan, where you served in the Norwegian embassy for three years, the beleaguered human rights community must have been fortunate to have such an impassioned voice for all that's wrong in this failing state. Or was that voice, perhaps, on mute?
The children of Sderot, the Israeli town near the Gaza border, have been in desperate need of just such a spokesperson as you for the past eight years.
After all, their town has been in the crosshairs of literally thousands of missiles and mortars fired from Gaza. Those Israeli children live with all the signs of trauma, knowing that, with only 15 seconds warning, they could be hit at any time in their schools, their parks, or their beds. Yet, during my visit there last week, for some reason, those children and their parents had yet to hear you speak out for them. What a pity!
And the children of Iran could use your help as well. According to human rights groups, Iran has no compunction about executing children or those who were children when their crimes were allegedly committed.
Oh, and by the way, your compassionate help would also undoubtedly be welcomed by others under the gun in Iran, including women's rights activists, union organizers, student protesters, independent journalists, reformist politicians, and religious minorities. And let's not forget, once again, the children of Israel, who, according to the Iranian president, don't have a right to live.
But wait! A Google search about you reveals nothing, not a single word, regarding your views on Zimbabwe, Congo, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sderot, or Iran. Or, for that matter, Burma, Darfur, Syria. Shall I go on?
Only Israel, faced with those who wish to destroy it, manages to prompt your impassioned correspondence and righteous indignation. Why?
No less, your stunning lack of education extends beyond the contemporary world to 20th century history, specifically the Holocaust.
Your invocation of the Holocaust to describe what's taken place in Gaza is, frankly, nothing short of obscene.
Your claim that the grandchildren of the survivors are doing to the Palestinians exactly what was done to them goes beyond any norm of decency, much less honesty.
Approve or disapprove of the Israeli military operation, but there is no basis whatsoever for such a comparison.
When Israel entered Gaza in a war of self-defense in 1967, the population was 360,000. After Israel withdrew totally from Gaza in 2005, it was estimated at 1.4 million.
Would that the Jewish population under Nazi rule had quadrupled!
When Israel entered Gaza in 1967, life expectancy for women was 46. When it left Gaza, it was 73.
Shall we even bother to discuss life expectancy for Jews under Nazi occupation?
The Second World War in Europe lasted from September 1, 1939 to May 8, 1945 - 68 months in all. That means an average monthly extermination rate of nearly 90,000 Jews.
Compare that to the total number of victims in Gaza over three weeks - roughly guesstimated at more or less 1,000 - and recall that the majority were armed fighters committed to Israel's destruction, who used civilians, including children, as human shields, mosques as arms depots, and hospitals as sanctuaries.
Believe me, Ms. Lilleng, if the "grandchildren of the Holocaust survivors" had wanted to do exactly what the Nazis did to their grandparents, they would have unleashed their full air, land, and sea power. They would have thrown the Israel Defense Forces' ethical guidelines to the wind, kicked out the UN and Red Cross personnel on the ground, stopped humanitarian transports of food, fuel, and medicine, prevented media reporting, and left absolutely nothing - and no one - standing.
Unless, of course, they needed slave labor, in which case they would have carted off the able-bodied to work in Auschwitz replicas until they dropped. Or material for ghoulish medical experimentation, in which case, in the spirit of Mengele, they would have kept Palestinian twins alive temporarily.
But Israel didn't do any of these things. It's a peace-seeking democracy dedicated to the rule of law - unlike so many of the countries whose horrific sins you blithely choose to overlook.
What are we to make of your selective moral outrage and rank hypocrisy?
You ought to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself why Israel, and only Israel, makes your blood boil and leads you to speak out, even at the risk of grossly distorting both reality and history.
The answer, Ms. Lilleng, should be painfully obvious.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
The battle of the Plains of Abraham
A WAR ON OUR HISTORY –Maclean’s Editorial Mar.2nd issue.
It is not often I disagree with Maclean’s editorial stances, but this time I do, for the following reasons:
Quebeckers, French-Canadian in particular, tend to be hyper-sensitive to anything they perceive as slights against their French-Canadian heritage. The members of the National Battlefield Commission should have been more sensitive to these “tribal” feelings. Instead, they proceeded to “wave a red flag before the bull”, with predictable results.
Until the Québécoise “revolution” in the sixties, English-speaking Canadians did, to a degree, “lord” it over the French-Canadians; controlling to a large extent the Quebec economy. As an example, Quebecois assembly workers at the GMC automobile plant at St.Therese, Que, were supervised by unilingual English-speaking managers. Thus, some lingering resentment is still present, though the situation, of course, is now quite different.
Furthermore, your analogy with Gettysburg is not totally accurate. Gettysburg was a battle in a civil war, between two sides of the same coin – Americans. They had all ready had their revolution and beaten the British. Had the British won, there would be no Gettysburg.
Quebeckers, however, until the Plains of Abraham, were French. They lost to the English, and had no say about becoming British subjects. Furthermore, the British, in their wisdom, magnanimously allowed the conquered to keep their language and (Catholic) religion, as well as control over education; thus perpetuating and protecting the separateness inherent in a different language and culture. The alternative might have been our own Gettysburg, but we might now be more “unified” or “uni-cultural.”
However, as they say, that’s history, and we are what we are, and it’s not so bad. As long as we remember to respect our differences and not throw sand in each others eyes.
It is not often I disagree with Maclean’s editorial stances, but this time I do, for the following reasons:
Quebeckers, French-Canadian in particular, tend to be hyper-sensitive to anything they perceive as slights against their French-Canadian heritage. The members of the National Battlefield Commission should have been more sensitive to these “tribal” feelings. Instead, they proceeded to “wave a red flag before the bull”, with predictable results.
Until the Québécoise “revolution” in the sixties, English-speaking Canadians did, to a degree, “lord” it over the French-Canadians; controlling to a large extent the Quebec economy. As an example, Quebecois assembly workers at the GMC automobile plant at St.Therese, Que, were supervised by unilingual English-speaking managers. Thus, some lingering resentment is still present, though the situation, of course, is now quite different.
Furthermore, your analogy with Gettysburg is not totally accurate. Gettysburg was a battle in a civil war, between two sides of the same coin – Americans. They had all ready had their revolution and beaten the British. Had the British won, there would be no Gettysburg.
Quebeckers, however, until the Plains of Abraham, were French. They lost to the English, and had no say about becoming British subjects. Furthermore, the British, in their wisdom, magnanimously allowed the conquered to keep their language and (Catholic) religion, as well as control over education; thus perpetuating and protecting the separateness inherent in a different language and culture. The alternative might have been our own Gettysburg, but we might now be more “unified” or “uni-cultural.”
However, as they say, that’s history, and we are what we are, and it’s not so bad. As long as we remember to respect our differences and not throw sand in each others eyes.
Letters, The Star, Feb.19th
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
TheStar.com | Opinion | Nothing like refighting old wars
Nothing like refighting old wars
Feb 19, 2009 04:30 AM
Re:Cancelling event seen as surrender,
Feb. 18
File this under "what in the world were they thinking?" The re-enactment of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham was a half-baked and stupid idea in the first place, akin to waving a red flag before a bull.
We have enough strife between the French and English factions of this country without actively looking for trouble.
Sigmund Roseth, Mississauga
TheStar.com | Opinion | Nothing like refighting old wars
Nothing like refighting old wars
Feb 19, 2009 04:30 AM
Re:Cancelling event seen as surrender,
Feb. 18
File this under "what in the world were they thinking?" The re-enactment of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham was a half-baked and stupid idea in the first place, akin to waving a red flag before a bull.
We have enough strife between the French and English factions of this country without actively looking for trouble.
Sigmund Roseth, Mississauga
The battle of the Plains of Abraham
A WAR ON OUR HISTORY –Maclean’s Editorial Mar.2nd issue.
It is not often I disagree with Maclean’s editorial stances, but this time I do, for the following reasons:
Quebeckers, French-Canadian in particular, tend to be hyper-sensitive to anything they perceive as slights against their French-Canadian heritage. The members of the National Battlefield Commission should have been more sensitive to these “tribal” feelings. Instead, they proceeded to “wave a red flag before the bull”, with predictable results.
Until the Québécoise “revolution” in the sixties, English-speaking Canadians did, to a degree, “lord” it over the French-Canadians; controlling to a large extent the
Furthermore, your analogy with
Quebeckers, however, until the
However, as they say, that’s history, and we are what we are, and it’s not so bad. As long as we remember to respect our differences and not throw sand in each others eyes.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
LETTER TO THE EDITOR : The Star
TheStar.com | Opinion | What if they were Christians?
What if they were Christians?
Feb 18, 2009 04:30 AM
Re:Another vilification of Islam,
Letter, Feb. 17
Letter writer Aliya Khan is another example of hypersensitive Muslims, in all walks of life.
She takes umbrage at the Star's reference to sharia and the Islamic relationship of the alleged murderer and his victim. I beg to differ: The incident is not "totally unrelated to Islam" since these two were intimately involved with the Muslim cause and with disseminating a positive view of Islam through their media.
Let's look at the problem from another angle: Let's assume that some fervent Christian or Jewish fanaticfollowed the dictum of the Old Testament and stoned to death his unfaithful wife.
Would not the Star be justified in publishing the fact that this man was an ardent Christian or Jew who killed his wife against all that his religious belief would mitigate?
Sigmund Roseth, Mississauga
What if they were Christians?
Feb 18, 2009 04:30 AM
Re:Another vilification of Islam,
Letter, Feb. 17
Letter writer Aliya Khan is another example of hypersensitive Muslims, in all walks of life.
She takes umbrage at the Star's reference to sharia and the Islamic relationship of the alleged murderer and his victim. I beg to differ: The incident is not "totally unrelated to Islam" since these two were intimately involved with the Muslim cause and with disseminating a positive view of Islam through their media.
Let's look at the problem from another angle: Let's assume that some fervent Christian or Jewish fanaticfollowed the dictum of the Old Testament and stoned to death his unfaithful wife.
Would not the Star be justified in publishing the fact that this man was an ardent Christian or Jew who killed his wife against all that his religious belief would mitigate?
Sigmund Roseth, Mississauga
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
A letter to the Editor re “Vilification of Islam”. Star, Feb.17/09.
Letter writer Aliya Khan (who also wants us to know that she is a professor of clinical medicine at McMaster University) is another example of hyper-sensitive Muslims, in all walks of life. Mrs. Khan takes umbrage at the Star’s reference to sharia and the Islamic relationship of the murderer and his victim. I beg to differ: the incident is not “totally unrelated to Islam”, since these two were intimately involved with the Muslim cause and with disseminating a positive view of Islam through their media.
This is an example of how intelligence and education is subordinated to emotion, tribalism and its concomitant religious fanaticism. Mrs. Khan asks “when, will we get past the hateful stereotypes and begin meaningful engagement with one another?” When, indeed! The answer begins with people like her and their hyper-sensitivity to the faintest perceived slight, instead of standing up to the radical Islamists who besmirch and demean all Islam.
Let’s look at the problem from another angle: let’s assume that some fervent Christian, or Jewish, fanatic (of which there are aplenty) followed the dictum of the Old Testament and stoned to death his unfaithful wife. Would not The Star be justified in publishing the fact that this man was an ardent Christian or Jew who killed his wife against all that his religious belief would mitigate? Just asking.
This is an example of how intelligence and education is subordinated to emotion, tribalism and its concomitant religious fanaticism. Mrs. Khan asks “when, will we get past the hateful stereotypes and begin meaningful engagement with one another?” When, indeed! The answer begins with people like her and their hyper-sensitivity to the faintest perceived slight, instead of standing up to the radical Islamists who besmirch and demean all Islam.
Let’s look at the problem from another angle: let’s assume that some fervent Christian, or Jewish, fanatic (of which there are aplenty) followed the dictum of the Old Testament and stoned to death his unfaithful wife. Would not The Star be justified in publishing the fact that this man was an ardent Christian or Jew who killed his wife against all that his religious belief would mitigate? Just asking.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
“Public aid for mom of 14 stirs anger” – Star, Feb.12/09
And so it should! Now Nadya Suleman is going to take her masters degree in counselling, while looking after her fourteen babies! Really? Methinks she could benefit from some counselling herself.
What she did is not only “grotesque”, but totally irresponsible and immoral. I think her motivation is simply to money, and I suspect the parents are willing participants. She was cut off from “disability” payments after collecting $ 165,000.00 over several years. Then, while receiving disability pay, would have been the time for her to try for an education – with “only” six children to manage. This woman is crazy like a fox.
I feel sorry for the children she has so irresponsibly brought into this world.
And so it should! Now Nadya Suleman is going to take her masters degree in counselling, while looking after her fourteen babies! Really? Methinks she could benefit from some counselling herself.
What she did is not only “grotesque”, but totally irresponsible and immoral. I think her motivation is simply to money, and I suspect the parents are willing participants. She was cut off from “disability” payments after collecting $ 165,000.00 over several years. Then, while receiving disability pay, would have been the time for her to try for an education – with “only” six children to manage. This woman is crazy like a fox.
I feel sorry for the children she has so irresponsibly brought into this world.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
“Harper’s Tories lost the plot a long, long time ago” – Andrew Coyne, Maclean’s .
Andrew Coyne’s scathing criticism of Harper and the Tories is well justified. To his litany of failed promise, I can add a couple of items: Income Trust Taxation –“we will never tax income trusts –we will never touch senior’s nest eggs”. Well, I’m a senior, and he “touched” my nest-egg. In fact, he almost destroyed it. Shame on me, for believing him. He also promised elections only every four years –in fact, he legislated it –until it was inconvenient for him. He played brinkmanship politics when cooperation and compromise –yes compromise –was needed. Ultimately he did compromise – everything; after failing in his gambit and having stared down the abyss.
In fairness, this is not the first time Conservatives have taken us into deficit. Brian Mulroney did a fine job there –saddling us with the second largest deficit in history –after Trudeau’s; with the Liberals, of all people, cleaning up the mess.
I was a card-carrying Conservative until Kim Campbell happened. Then, with the “new Conservatives” led by Harper, I saw a New Jerusalem, and signed up again. But Harper’s promise of a new party with strong and high ideals soon came crashing down in the realities of power politics, and he soon was down in the mud with all the other piggies. The final nail in the reform coffin was when he added another eighteen names, willy nilly, to the seniors club called the Senate, which he had promised to abolish or at least reform. I am now totally disappointed and disabused with “Conservatives” and their ilk.
Then again, hope springs eternal; could our Iggy be a Canadian Obama? Just wishing.
In fairness, this is not the first time Conservatives have taken us into deficit. Brian Mulroney did a fine job there –saddling us with the second largest deficit in history –after Trudeau’s; with the Liberals, of all people, cleaning up the mess.
I was a card-carrying Conservative until Kim Campbell happened. Then, with the “new Conservatives” led by Harper, I saw a New Jerusalem, and signed up again. But Harper’s promise of a new party with strong and high ideals soon came crashing down in the realities of power politics, and he soon was down in the mud with all the other piggies. The final nail in the reform coffin was when he added another eighteen names, willy nilly, to the seniors club called the Senate, which he had promised to abolish or at least reform. I am now totally disappointed and disabused with “Conservatives” and their ilk.
Then again, hope springs eternal; could our Iggy be a Canadian Obama? Just wishing.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Sunday, February 1, 2009
All the news that’s fit to fund –John Hondrich, Sunday Star, Feb.1st/09.
Newspapers, or “paper news”, are facing difficult times today, with the competition from the “instant news” of the internet, e-mail “push” news-bits, and the ubiquitous 24 hr radio & TV newscasts. If the only raison d’être of newspapers were instant news, they have all ready lost that battle. However, by providing in-dept analysis of news, trends and backgrounds, reflecting society and politics, and making a social statement, paper news /newspapers still have a valuable contribution to make.
The way I see it, there are a couple of major issues here: “old timers” like me, brought up on papers, still have a strong preference for the tactile paper news format, though I am getting most of my new “news” from the internet and the radio. My computer cannot compete when it comes to in-depth reading and the convenience of having a newspaper or magazine on my lap in my easy chair and with my feet on the coffee table. Ditto for books – I doubt I would ever read a book in electronic format, or keep a book-CD in my book case. The younger folks are more attuned to the electronic medium, and somewhat addicted to the multi-tasking, instant communications of the electronic media. The biggest challenge for traditional newspapers in the future will be to captivate and keep this new generation of potential readers, and to remain relevant to the needs of the more serious minded public. The tabloid and Harlequin romance readers will have their own niche.
The question raised by Mr. Honderich is a valid one: who will pay the piper? After all, discerning and thoughtful readers are not in a majority, and newspapers need funds to keep publishing and pay reporters and contributors. He brings up the example of the CBC and BBC. Newspapers have resisted government support in the name of press freedom, and a government sponsored press could be subject to political interference. But, there are ways around that also. If all established newspapers were to be supported by public funds, either by a tax allowance or direct government support, this could be done at arms-length politically, and not necessarily become a partisan issue.
As Winston Churchill said about democracy, it’s not the best, but the alternatives are so much worse. We need to take a serious look at this issue, before it is too late, and here the newspapers themselves should be in the van.
The way I see it, there are a couple of major issues here: “old timers” like me, brought up on papers, still have a strong preference for the tactile paper news format, though I am getting most of my new “news” from the internet and the radio. My computer cannot compete when it comes to in-depth reading and the convenience of having a newspaper or magazine on my lap in my easy chair and with my feet on the coffee table. Ditto for books – I doubt I would ever read a book in electronic format, or keep a book-CD in my book case. The younger folks are more attuned to the electronic medium, and somewhat addicted to the multi-tasking, instant communications of the electronic media. The biggest challenge for traditional newspapers in the future will be to captivate and keep this new generation of potential readers, and to remain relevant to the needs of the more serious minded public. The tabloid and Harlequin romance readers will have their own niche.
The question raised by Mr. Honderich is a valid one: who will pay the piper? After all, discerning and thoughtful readers are not in a majority, and newspapers need funds to keep publishing and pay reporters and contributors. He brings up the example of the CBC and BBC. Newspapers have resisted government support in the name of press freedom, and a government sponsored press could be subject to political interference. But, there are ways around that also. If all established newspapers were to be supported by public funds, either by a tax allowance or direct government support, this could be done at arms-length politically, and not necessarily become a partisan issue.
As Winston Churchill said about democracy, it’s not the best, but the alternatives are so much worse. We need to take a serious look at this issue, before it is too late, and here the newspapers themselves should be in the van.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)